Who will protect liberty?

In the early days of our country, it was considered unseemly for a politician to actively campaign for the Presidency. George Washington didn’t even want the job, taking it only when his sense of duty compelled him.

In America’s first contentious election, candidates John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not outwardly campaign at all, leaving their minions to do their bidding.

Our early leaders, particularly those who cut their teeth in revolution against a king, fully understood that those who eagerly sought power were exactly the wrong type of people to possess it. America was to be the land of liberty, and the principles of a limited federal government were to be the citizens’ best insurance. The President’s primary duty was as protector of the people’s liberty. It was not intended to be a temporary throne for a powerful political kingpin.

However, after more than two hundred years of pounding, politicians and their judicial allies have transmogrified the federal government into one of essentially unlimited powers. Those powers each came at the direct expense of the people. By any standard, today’s federal government is far more antagonistic toward the people’s liberty than that which inspired our revolution.

When election day in 2008 finally arrives, some ambitious presidential candidates will have campaigned well over two years, spending tens of millions of dollars in the process. The victor will then swear under oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. But will those syllables represent a solemn pledge or simply carry out a perfunctory task?

Most agree the Supreme Court is now relatively balanced between originalists and activists. Originalists attempt to determine the original agreement adopted by the people. Activists give greater weight to factors like International law and social justice, often choosing to invest more value in auras and nuances than in the words themselves.

It takes no more than five minutes to read the entire Bill of Rights. Familiarize yourself with what it says about speech, expression, self-protection, searches, seizures, eminent domain and limited federal powers. Then, decide for yourself who should be protecting your rights.

The next President of the United States will likely be in a position to appoint two or more Justices. Those Justices could determine whether our precious liberties are to be maintained or allowed to further erode for possibly the next thirty years.

The kind of President you want should depend on the kind of Supreme Court you want. Should it consist of Justices who operate on language and intent, or the ones clearly responsible for bringing our Constitutional protections to their current watered-down state?