• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • In Their Own Words: A Warning Label on the Constitution

    Diane Macedo over at FoxNews.com points out that one publishing company–Wilder Publications–has put warning labels on their editions of the United States Constitution. The warning label  on “Foundations of Freedom: Common Sense, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, The U.S. Constitution” reads:

    “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

    The idea that the Constitution is somehow dated and less relevant today is outrageous. The simple, noble principles enshrined in the Constitution have never been more relevant than they are today.

    Heritage’s Matthew Spalding makes this exact case in his book, We Still Hold These Truths, writing:

    To this day, so many years after the American Revolution, these principles—proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the United States Constitution—still define us as a nation and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous and just nation unlike any in the world. They are the highest achievements of our tradition, serving not only as a powerful beacon to those throughout the world who strive for freedom and seek to vindicate self-government but also a warning to tyrants and despots everywhere. It is because of these principles, not despite them, that America has achieved its greatness.

    Macedo notes that many who have encountered this bizarre warning have already begun to voice their displeasure:

    Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”

    Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the “dangerous ideas” it’s trying to protect children from: “limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy.”

    If you are interested in being exposed to the “dangerous ideas” in our Constitution, you can request your own pocket copy (sans warning label) from Heritage.

    Posted in First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    41 Responses to In Their Own Words: A Warning Label on the Constitution

    1. James Carafano James Jay Carafano says:

      This just makes me ill.

    2. Billie says:

      Who or whatever "thinks" to perceive this document as unfit for the times, doesn't grasp it's true meaning. then to act to distort it is pathetic and weak, clearly promoting a population of pathetic and weak people.The Constitution is FIT for all mankind! Get the infidels out!

      The constitution stands for the strength and FREEDOM of ALL mankind, not categorize by Wilder's (or anyones), perceptions of human weakness with bias, discrimination and favoritism. IF WILDER CAN'T RESPECT THIS DOCUMENT OF THE PEOPLES CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN, THEY ARE UNFIT!


    3. HawkWatcher, Mi. says:

      Unfortunately, the Wilder position is indicative of a much wider disdain for our laws at the highest levels. I'm normally a peaceful man, but I will fight with whatever it takes to defend our Constitution as written.

      53 Senators just voted to ignore Article 1, Section 7, and allow the Executive (through the EPA) to make law and collect taxes, supported by a ridiculous, non-scientific Supreme Court decision that CO2, a trace gas, is dangerous.

      How much of this are we going to take? George Washington said that the people are the only keepers of the Constitution. Today, there are no checks and balances, no separation of powers, no representative government, one assault after another, and I am pissed off like never before.

      If we can't vote them out or get the courts to enforce the Constitution, what is left for us to do? 2nd Amendment, baby. Lock and load. I can't believe I'm speaking like this, but these gutless statists are forcing the consideration! I don't think they have a clue as to how many of us will act to defend our liberty!

      Should I fear incarceration for my speech? They're locking people up here in Michigan for what they say! I've had it!

    4. Barbara Frances Delo says:

      The Framers of our Constitution wisely created a document that would stand up to the test of time. It is not a sprawling document with time specific details, but rather it is based on enduring principles including the inherent right of each citizen to life, liberty,and property, and due process of the law.

      Beyond that, it establishes a government structure that provides a means for a balance of power, a means for defence AND ensures adaption to different times through legislative action and executive decisions – ALL WITHIN THE FRAMWORK OF OUR BASIC AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. The task of protecting these principles is the (sometimes neglected) responsibility of the Supreme Court.


    5. Raven Chukwu, London says:

      The "warning label" itself may be unfortunate but it makes a point worth repeating. The US constitution, though it expresses noble ideas and enduring principles, contains a few provisions and perspectives which are undeniably "of their own time and place" and are, as a result, not worthy of uncritical acceptance (most notably the "three-fifth's compromise" found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 which infamously sets out that for certain purposes slaves were to be considered three-fifths of a person).

      • Dooz40 says:

        Raven, but you miss the intended purpose of the 3/5ths compromise . . . . it WAS to ultimately end slavery through attrition, so that the southern states got representation, but didn't overwhelm the other states representation in Congress by the slavery states having many, many more people that could be represented and then overwhelmingly control the Congressional debates and power over those states that didn't recognize slaves as property, and not people. Ultimately, it did the job it was intended to do . . . no more slavery, and no more people being treated/seen as property.

    6. West Texan says:

      You're absolutely correct Brandon. At a time when our nation more than ever needs to return to its founding principles, some self-righteous ignorant publisher fails to respect the fact that these so called archaic documents are responsible for the civil rights everyone enjoys today. Such a disclaimer is nothing more than deceitful manipulation.

    7. Cory, Minneapolis says:

      I understand the anger, but people should keep in mind that this is just a boilerplate warning that appears on several of their books. In fact, in another post I saw on this, people were pointing out that several other books had similar warnings.

      The warning is not about the publisher's view of the constitution; it's about the publisher's overuse of a stupid warning label.

    8. Jeanne Stotler, Wood says:

      It shows that when they take the oath "to uphold and protect the Constitution" that they are just saying words and don't believe in what they swear to. I believe that those who take this oath without intending to obey it are commiting treason and should be tried for such.

    9. Ilse Spaulding, Faye says:

      I would like to know on who's authority Wilder Publishing got permission or was it "ordered" to put these warning labels on these books????? This is REALLY getting scary folks! We need to stop this liberal government and hold them accountable. Don't forget to vote in November and votes these bums out!

    10. John Walters, Texas says:

      In response to Raven Chukwu, London, I would venture that no other Constitution anywhere in the world recognizes any rights ascribed to slaves. Has it ever been so in your country or in the many colonies where slavery flourished? Please do not be so naive as to suggest there are no more slaves in the world, there are. Where owning slaves is either allowed by the government or overlooked, the rights of those peoples equals to 0/5. We no longer have slaves in America. We have instead moved these peoples into our welfare state where they remain stripped of their self-respect, and self-worth, and are incapable of being self-reliant. They do however provide one service to the society that allows them to feel for a moment that they are 5/5 of a person, that is when the vote for their masters once more.

    11. jill -Maine says:

      I hear you Hawkwatcher. You are so right. I think they ought to put disclaimers on the front of every public school telling kids to question every BS thing they learn in these places.

    12. Greg B. Vail, AZ says:

      Raven, that is why we have amendments! The framers knew the future would bring change, and allowed for it by making amendments possible.

    13. Jerry, Indiana says:

      Raven, I would encourage you to read Matthew Spalding's book "We Still Hold These Truths" regarding the three-fifths compromise. Out of context, referring to any human as three-fifths of a person is degrading and obnoxious, but since the number of slaves directly influenced the number of votes a wealthy slave owner could cast, the writers of the Constitution wrote that as a way to limit slavery, not demean the slaves. It's important to put that in context.

    14. Millimurph, Atlanta says:

      The Constitution explicitly guarantees the preservation of slavery of black people. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with recommending that you put certain things into some context and perspective for your kids. And the book includes a ton of stuff written at the time, not just the Constitution. People act like the warning suggests that the things like judicial review and checks and balances are antiquated, but that is clearly false, it is clear to me it’s only referring to things like saying “men” instead of “people,” or enshrining slavery. Heck, the book is titled, “Foundations of Freedom.” I don’t think they’re communist conspirators. In fact, I like the warning. Maybe it will help cut down on the number of people who disrespect the Constitution altogether just because they don’t understand some differences about society back then.

    15. Lisa Omaha, NE says:

      It never ceases to amaze me how quickly individual's forget the sacrafices our forefather's endured to guarantee us the freedom's we have today! The people at "Wilder" have the opportunity to expel their views because of the rights given to them through the Constitution. I just hope that people excercise their rights to not purchase anything from "Wilder" and use commerce as their weapon to bankrupt this company.

    16. Drew Page, IL says:

      Wilder Publications are only worshiping at the altar of political correctness. They don't want to offend any of their liberal, progressive customers.

      P.C. is a disease that I fear will be the end of us all.

    17. Ben Franklin, Indian says:


      You forget the the Constitution is made up of both the main body AND its Amendments. The 3/5's Compromise that you indicate as being an example of something that is "dated" was changed with the Abolition of Slavery and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Likewise, the provisions granting the vote to women and other "dated" provisions. In fact, since the Constitution itself provides for an Amendment Process, it cannot EVER be "outmoded" or "dated" (well, except maybe for the time period between the realization of the need for a change and the actual change taking effect).

      By the way the 3/5s Compromise is an anti-slavery position. The abolitionists at the Convention weren't about to give the Southern States more representation until they freed those slaves. On the one hand, the slaveholders wanted to treat their slaves as property, but on the other hand, they wanted to treat them as individuals. Franklin, and others said: "I don't think so!" They wanted a built in incentive for emancipation.

    18. Lloyd Goldrick, Albu says:

      Raven. The Constitution itself amends the language you refer to. The nation "so conceived and so dedicated" paid in the blood of 600,000 of its children for some of the "few provisions and perspectives which are undeniably of their own time and place", the 3/5 provision in particular. The "point" which you declaim the disclaimer makes is intrinsic to the Constitution itself and thus makes the disclaimer as superfluous as it is fatuous and condescending; when the voice of the People has been raised, the Constitution was amended, its language modified as the mind of the People saw fit. The reading of the document is the reading of our history, and an insulting disclaimer is an inadequate tutor to instruct our citizenry as to the meaning and intent of our founding documents. It is the law of the land, not some ancient and archaic piece of literature that must be parsed and tut-tutted over for being of its time and place, as if that is some heretofore unheard concept. The first principles as declared in 1776 have not changed and the Republic thus founded and maintained is still a beacon of hope to millions despite the pusillanimous pouting of Wilder Publications and like-minded whiners the world over. The documents speak to those hoping for a better life as they have for centuries. They need not come here to enjoy it, though they are welcome if they come in the front door and are other-wise law-abiding. The application of the truths which we hold as self-evident will bear fruit abundantly wherever they are planted, as the purple fingers of the Iraqi's are beginning to testify.

    19. Lloyd Goldrick, Albu says:

      Millimurph, the document does not explicitly guarantee the slavery of black people, it puts off the decision of what to do about that execrable institution for another time. International trafficking in human bondage was to be suspended after 1805. That it took four score years to end the iniquitous institution is a sin for which the nation atoned in the blood, death and dismemberment of hundreds of thousands. Have we become so sensitive to the sleights and shifts of history that the shushing of nannies is required even in the hallowed halls of the National Archives? Many of the countrymen of my ancestors were living in huts in Ireland when Frederick Douglass visited there; the sight of those hovels caused him to compare them unfavorably to the meanest slave shack he had ever seen down south. God bless him for his work. Do I need some one to remind me that England was not so civilized as its abolishment of slavery (before the United States) would suggest? No. It was what it was and cannot be changed. Peeping, tutting and muttering that the United States was not what some feel it should have been does not change what was and is still the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever seen. Why do we need a disclaimer? Will we contract cancer if we read the founding documents without a warning label? Will the original selection of Senators by the state legislatures shock us into catatonia? Did the 3/5's provision so enervate him as to prevent the President from running and being elected to responsible positions of power again and again and again? Why not let the documents speak without a pusillanimously editorializing preface? If there are questions let them stir the reader to greater scholarship to determine the history of the issue and its resolution. The tremendous accomplishments of Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Cosby Jr., Oprah Winfrey should put to rest the notion that we live under a document that guarantees the slavery of black people.

    20. Raven Chukwu, London says:

      @Ben Franklin

      The fact that "amendments" are required in the first place is an acknowledgement of what should be obvious: The US constitution is not Holy Writ. It is not a document to be worshipped or passed on without alteration from one generation to the next but rather it's a document created by mortal men in a certain historical context trying to reconcile noble ideals to unfortunate political realities.

      My point was not that the three-fifths compromise is "pro-slavery". It's called a "compromise" because it was precisely that: an attempt to find middle ground between competing interests. Its presence however serves to remind us that the Constitution, fine thing though it is, ought not to be worshipped. Our perspectives change. Society moves on. Amendments (and re-evaluations) are sometimes required.

      @John Walters:

      I would venture to say that most other countries with written constitutions make no reference at all to slavery (assuming by default that all citizens are free and equally valuable at least in terms of enumeration). This is probably because most existing constitutions were written (or re-written) long after slavery was abolished (or in countries in which it was never a significant social issue). And anyway, that's beside the point. It is not enough to say that the Founding Fathers treated their slaves better than their contemporaries in other countries or that they had more "advanced" opinions about equality and human dignity. The point is that those views (on these specific issues), while historically commendable, would nonetheless fall far short of acceptability today.

      Once again this is not an attempt to disparage the rest of the Constitution. It's just important to place things in context (in the right historical perspective).

    21. Norman Reindl says:

      Although not explicit Wilder implies that the "values" at the time the Constitution was framed should be scrutinized critically because they differ from the "values" of today. Wilder disregards the fact that those "values" are what made the Constitution a great document that has stood the test of time, making America a nation above all other nations even though it is the youngest. Wilder should advise the parents to point out to their children the nations that "changed" and adapted their governing to "values" held by the progressives of today.

    22. TonyT in Scottsdale says:

      To Raven Chukwu, London: get over yourself. Slavery was outlawed here in 1807 for God's sake. Find a new song to sing already. You are a race hustler and we don't need your kind here.

    23. Clarence J. Angelett says:

      Our constitution is a covenant and thereby fixed. It can be changed through the ammendment process. The Constitution is thereby fixed and includes the properly ratifiaed changes or ammendments. Any arbitrary ignoring its conditions is tyrannical. Executive orders cannot change the constitution. Legislative action can only change the constitution by proper ammendment. Other action of the Cogress which changes the covenant tenants with the proper ammendment proceedure is tyranny. Any court action which is appart from the actual reading of the constitution will be considered legislatilng from the bench and can only be called tyranny. The court is to intrepret the constitution only as it was written by the signers.

    24. Vernon McCoy says:

      there isn't a better it is written in stone.

    25. Catherine West; San says:

      “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

      Wilder Publications, with all Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, this kind of remark demonstrates the core concept that both The Declaration and Constitution represents, but these political philosophies cannot and will not accept: "..to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind.."; and "..WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…; and "..And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. From the Constitution: "..and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..". The following original sources are missing from Wilder's Publications: The Bible, Common Law, John Locke, Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone, Adam Smith " Wealth of Nations". "Self Government is rooted in religion and morality. This self-governing spirit was called the American Character and it can be learned by examining the lives of our founding fathers. ("A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution, by Joseph Andrews, pp. 29)".

      Wilder Publications can hardly use a do not reproduce founding documents, but maybe is saves embarrassment for whoever is responsible for the narrow, single issue viewpoint of two documents written from the huge, general world of Human Nature and mankind in leadership – governing – doing right according to God's teachings which was the imperfect but also daily world of All Of The Founders Involved In Writing Our Two Unique in the World Documents representing "..a deeper understanding of our country which has turned out to be the longest lasting Republic known in history"; at least until Obama, Wilder Publications and many other revisionist historians who have a popular trend to debase the founders and other contributors to the founding and growth of America through its twin, founding documents each relying on the other for The Promise or Declaration and The fullfillment of the Promise – The Constitution.

      Wilder Publications has little respect and even less understanding of the men and times resulting in The Declaration and The Constitution Unfortunately, this absent or poor understanding is rampant in our elected representatives at all levels of government; and includes many commentators, interviewers, the current Federal/executive interlopers into the privacy and safety of person, property, effects fulfillment and home. It is our lack of knowledge because of public education over the last 45+ yrs.., that has contributed to the loses of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because once religious and moral principles are lost to ourselves and our young, the idea of a republic is lost to all mankind as evidenced by the disasters caused by opinion and judgement of the self-interest of a few men.

      Glenn Beck ,www.TeachConstitution.org; Constitution Society at http://www.constitution.org, Learning Cnstitution.org are active in getting Americans back to the America which has been successful for 234yrs.

      We all Must Continue to Learn, relearn, and teach these two documents from original sources, from the men who lived with the problems of George III, and all that went into the problems all founders were aware of in terms of imperfections of mankind which continue today, tomorrow, and forever- regardless of Progressive, Socialist, Revisionist, Liberal doubt of God the Creator of Heaven and Earth. "I am the way, the truth, and the light. He that believeth in me shall have everlasting life….

    26. Pingback: Ridiculous

    27. Ron Hinshaw, Lompoc, says:

      Thank you, Heritage Foundation for the updated copy (Amendent XXVII added) to my Bicentennial Copy always present in my top desk drawer.

      The inside cover reads, "The Declaration of Indepence was the promise; the Constituition was the fulfillment."

      The following is Warren E. Burger's Forward to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES that was by the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constition:


      In the last quarter of the 18th Century, no

      nation in the world was governed with separated

      and divided powers providing checks and balances

      on the exercise of authority by those who gov-

      erned. A first step toward such a result was taken

      with the Declaration of Independence in 1776,

      which was followed by the Constitution drafted in

      Philadelphia in 1787; in 1791 the Bill of Rights

      was added. Each had antecedents back to the Eng-

      lish Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, and beyond.

      The work of 55 men at Philadelphia in 1787

      was another blow to the concept of the divine right

      of kings. The freedoms flowing from this Consti-

      tution created a land of opportunities, and ever

      since then discouraged and oppressed people from

      every part of the world have made their way to

      our shores. There were others too – educated,

      affluent – seeking a new life and new freedoms

      in a new land.

      This is the meaning of our Constitution.

      The principal goal of the Bicentennial Com-

      mission is to stimulate an appreciation and under-

      standing of our national heritage – a history and

      civics lesson for all of us. This lesson cannot be

      learned without first reading and grasping the

      meaning of this remarkable document – the first

      of its kind in all human history.

      (signed by Warren E. Burger)

      Chairman, Commission on the Bicentennial

      of the United States Constitution "

      Chief Justice of the United States, 1969-1986

    28. Judith A Larimer Pa. says:

      While my husband was serving in the Army in Germany I had the good luck of being able to ask an older woman—-How could it be that no one tried to stop Hitler. Were you not aware of all the horrible things going on. She said—-" We hoped he could make a difference a change from the old, my fr5iend your country (USA) is about ripe for the same thing to take place. We then as a country had gone down hill. No jobs no industry, control of our schools.yea your country is ready for one like we had. God help you." I shall never forget those words. And they scare the hell out of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!hillwoman143

    29. Bobbie Jo says:

      …some just don't have the dignity it takes to acknowledge the strength of this sacred document. Therefore their minds are narrowly focused on negative, false and misinterpretation of personal perceptions or personal ignorance.

    30. The Giggle Test says:

      I don't think what was said in the article is what was meant by the warning label. In fact, I don't think it's a warning label in the traditional sense at all. Wilder Publications probably had in their minds for people to see it as an evolving document of sorts. The founding fathers could not have forseen everything applicable today. If anything, parents should discuss with their kids how the Constitution, etc can be applied.

    31. Marjorie AL says:


    32. Corky, Fl says:

      Yes, there is a lot of forgetting these days. We for get the Conststution because it's NOT tought anymore. We forget the battles and why they were faught. WE forget 911. The politician forgets his promise because he crooked and all he wants is money and a spot on TV. obama is a socialist and he commits lies everyday. He commits TREASON everyday and yet we, the American People do nothing. Why? You'd rather sit and watch TV and see the crooked Politician or complain about what is going on. Unions and obama are running YOU into the ground and it won't be long before obama cuts the unions out!! LOLOL Stand up and be counted Americans. If obama wants a fight let's give him one….

    33. Mrs. Elaine VanGelde says:

      All of our people who Love God And Country must stand up and do what ever it takes to show their God given courage and strength by my what ever means make it impossible for these people and those like them rto have a voice or do business that years down our God given nation and what most of us believe to be true.

    34. Mrs. Elaine VanGelde says:

      Come on !!Too much lip service !! Where is the God given courage for all good men to do something about taking our country back from the hands of our enemy!!

    35. Chip C. Los Angeles says:

      Decent people don’t need these things explained to them.

    36. Billie says:

      “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

      wilder ought to be ashamed of themselves. this document is not suppose to waiver! IT SHOULD STANDS THE TEST OF TIME USING TWO HUMAN QUALITIES OF STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE with proper leadership it would!

      Race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations are PERSONAL AND PRIVATE, PERVERTS! AND HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED without burden to the public.

    37. Billie says:

      Wilder: “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

      Wilder ought to be ashamed of themselves. this document is not suppose to waiver! IT SHOULD STAND THE TEST OF TIME USING TWO HUMAN QUALITIES OF STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE with proper leadership it would!

      Race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations are PERSONAL AND PRIVATE, PERVERTS! AND HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED without burden to the public, until it's been excessively notable in the last 15 years

    38. Sue - Chicago, IL says:

      I purchased the book being referenced before all this came out on the disclaimer by Wilder. I've contacted Amazon requesting a refund for the sole reason that I NEVER would have purchased this book had I known of its offensive disclaimer. It may not seem like much, but I'm returning this book as a matter of protest. Hopefully, Amzaon will honor my request. I'll read these important documents from other, respectable sources. I'll never purchase any book from Wilder, EVER AGAIN.

    39. Steven Barrett says:

      I've never been a "strict constructionist" in the sense of interpreting the Constitution in such a strict way that the nation couldn't meet its challenges in "real time." Most lovers of the Constitution aren't and Mr. Angelette did a wonderful job of illustrating just how flexible the Constitution actually is. President Obama's Jacobin view towards the Constitution is frightenly similar to that of Jefferson's apprehensions about a national constitution, fearing that someohow such a document would leave the nation and its future generations in some form of legal straitjackets. Thank God that the Founding Fathers were thinking more like John Adams, author of the oldest Constitution in continuing service, that of my Commonwealth's, Massachusetts. (It's still continually functioning notwithstanding the arrogance of both House and Senate Leaders' contemptuous behind the scenes decision to spike a massively successful signature drive to put a question on the 2006 ballot concerning gay marriage. The petition organizers met all the requirements of the Commonwealth's Constitution except for one thing: they didn't have the same amount of clout as the loudly obnoxious gay marriage lobbyists. Adams didn't write that into the Constitution, but today's Democrats have done a wonderful job of making sure it's tucked into both state and Federal Constitutions whenever they are in the drivers' seats in their respective legislatures. John Adams would've wept buckets upon buckets after watching that sorry spectacle. If any thing deserved a "surgeon's warning label" that debacle and legislative coup should get one embossed in fools' gold.

      Constitutions that are [properly] written to protect the dignity and safety of all individuals regardless of their social standings, religious beliefs, race and gender will automatically include mechanisms allowing for judicial flexibility within carefully proscribed boundaries … which don't violate the very document that's written to protect them in the first place, regardless of present dire circumstances or such overstated public clamoring for "change" that'll bring "real hope" through some dreamy experimental applications of international laws. If the people want these kinds of laws to serve their needs, etc., then they will vote into office those sober-minded people who'll craft our laws to protect our needs first; and so long as the introduction of outside novelties does not violate or Constitutional guidelines to begin with, then we should proceed in using them; not before just because they' represent "hope," for those who want to change the most successful national Constitution in world history …especially if their raw end is to provide means of wealth redistribution through clever guises.

    40. Johann Wolfgang von says:

      The definition of a "conservator" or a "conservative" is one who conserves. This means by definition a conservative does not change or reinvent what is being, "conserved." This concept applies to religious thought, political thought, social contracts, and their interpretations.

      Obviously Wilder Publications is not comfortable with a "conservatice" approach to the founding documents of the USA. I bet there are plenty of publishers "comfortable" with the founding documents with whom I can do business….

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.