If you discuss Government and the Constitution enough with a ‘progressive liberal’ (I will refer to them as Statists), you will inevitably hear them state, as one of their justifications, that the founders created a ‘Newtonian’ Constitution, but that our world is ‘Darwinian’.

Now, for most rational conservatives, this statement boggles the mind. In order to understand it, we have to understand the Statists view of ‘Newtonian’ and ‘Darwinian’ as it applies to the Constitution.

Woodrow Wilson, whom many consider the father of modern American progressive’s, states it thus:

“The makers of our Federal Constitution read Montesquieu with true scientific enthusiasm. They were scientists in their way the best way of their age those fathers of the nation. Jefferson wrote of “the laws of Nature” and then by way of afterthought “and of Nature’s God.” And they constructed a government as they would have constructed an orrery to display the laws of nature. Politics in their thought was a variety of mechanics. The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.”

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

This is a lie. It is a convenient way to rationalize changing a document that stands in the way of changes that are part of the statist agenda.  Wilson detested the separation of powers defined in the Constitution and this rationalization served as his justification in changing the founding documents to overcome separation of powers and federalism.

What a statist means by Newtonian, is that something Newtonian is a mechanical system, based on unbending laws, it only works one way, and as with all machines, a Constitution based on a mechanical system becomes obsolete with time.

What a statist means by Darwinian, is that something Darwinian is a living system, and just as animals change overtime through Darwinian evolution in order to adapt to their current environment so should a Constitution.

On the surface, this might seem wise.  Even today I am tempted to view it as such.  We as humans must adapt to our situation, or perish.  Why then, should our Constitution not be bound by the same?  Adapt or die.

Government by its nature is the process of control.  The Constitution sets limits on that control by separating the power of the Government.  In effect setting it against itself.  A Government fighting itself is much less likely to fight against the people and their rights it was constituted to secure.

Even a statist will be honest as to what will happen to Government unrestrained.

If the Constitution is easily amendable, that dictates frequent change, sometime on a drastic level.  It is an open channel to chaos and totalitarian control as a means to resolve it.  As with all living things, had the Constitution been written thus, it would have long ago died and the American experiment along with it.

But the Constitution is not static.  It can be amended and has been in the passed.  It has changed.  It has evolved.  In accordance to the proper deliberation of the three bodies of government, and not on the whim of a few in power at any one moment in history.  The Constitution is an ageless document and provides a rock solid foundation that will continue to serve its people until the time when governments are no longer required.