Our objectives
More Info
1. REDISCOVER
Rediscover the Founder’s intents for the Constitution and Bill of Rights
The primary goal of including a Bill of Rights, as demanded by the Anti-Federalists, was to more clearly specify the limits of power being granted to the new federal government—to keep it within its jurisdictional boundaries. Because the Articles of Confederation had not grant to the federal government enough powers, the Founders at the 1787 Constitutional Convention needed to forge a better constitution which would grant additional power to the federal government. The Anti-Federalists demanded a Bill of Rights, which the Federalists argued was an unnecessary redundancy, seeing the Constitution had not granted the federal government the powers they had retained to the States. However, the Anti-Federalists wanted more assurance. The addition of the Bill of Rights was enough to assuage the Anti-Federalists’ apprehensions of creating an uncontrollable federal government. It objectively defined, even at the risk of redundancy, those jurisdictions which the States jealously guarded and refused to share with this new government. Americans need to rediscover the lost understanding that the Bill of Rights is a bill of jurisdictions. The Bill of Rights was not composed to say there would or would not be freedom of speech, but who had jurisdiction to determine what it was to be—the States had that jurisdiction, not the federal government. (The Joy of Interpretation, pages 229 – 230)
2. EXPOSE
Expose how far interpretational drift has moved us away from the Founders’ intent
Interpretive drift, like continental drift, can occur under our feet at such imperceptibly slow rates as not to be perceived. The drift is fostered by the gradual accumulation of interpretive errors introduced by exegetical fallacies: grammatical, etymological, logical, presuppositional and historical. All interpretive communities must guard their documents of ultimate authority from the corrupting effects of interpretational drift. From time to time an interpretive community must reassess its current “orthodoxy” in order to determine if it is authentic or counterfeit. CCR is demanding that the American interpretive community engage in a sweeping reassessment of much which is passing as legitimate constitutional orthodoxy in order to expose the massive drift caused by interpretive errors and the Doctrine of Incorporation. This reassessment will reveal the unavoidable conclusion that it is now time for a Constitutional Reformation which can return us to our authentic constitutional roots. (The Joy of Interpretation, pages 125 and 234)
3. REASSESS
Reassess current 14th Amendment jurisprudence
Eternal vigilance is required if interpretive communities are successful in maintaining the integrity of their documents of ultimate authority. Reassessment gives these communities the opportunity to determine if they have been successful in protecting against the constant intrusions of skeptical subjectivism on one hand, and romantic whim on the other—that is, from seeing too little and from seeing too much. At times reassessment reveals that interpretive mistakes, which at first appeared innocent and went unnoticed, have led to false premises or repugnant conclusions. It is then that these communities should be impelled to retrace their steps to find where reasoning went wrong. Only then is the erroneous train of thought that at first appeared innocent revealed as the culprit—an interpretive wolf in sheep’s clothing. Americans need to reassess current 14th Amendment jurisprudence is order to reform many of the repugnant conclusions to which we have been led. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century revealed the repugnant theological conclusions which resulted from the interpretive heresy of medieval four-fold exegesis. In similar fashion, a twenty-first century Constitutional Reformation should reveal the repugnant constitutional conclusions which have resulted from the interpretive heresy of the Doctrine of Incorporation. (The Joy of Interpretation, pages 322–343)
4. DESCRIBE & REFUTE
Describe and refute the Doctrine of Incorporation
The Doctrine of Incorporation is a heretical interpretive theory claiming the 14th Amendment applied the twenty-eight clauses of the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights against the States. It is unquestionable, though few Americans know this, that these clauses were originally restrictions only upon the federal government (Barrow v. Baltimore, 1833). American jurisprudence operated under what CCR refers to as the Doctrine of Non-Incorporation from the ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 until the emergence of the Doctrine of Incorporation beginning around the 1930s. Proponents for the Doctrine of Incorporation claim the 14th Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868, ended the era of Non-Incorporation and established a new Incorporated era. However, CCR refutes this claim. The era of Incorporation did not begin on July 9, 1868, but began much later when Progressive courts began “saying” the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States. The Progressives’ Doctrine of Incorporation explicitly inverted the very intent of the Anti-Federalists’ demand for the Bill of Rights. The Doctrine of Incorporation is stark evidence that the Anti-Federalists were correct that the illegitimate centralization of federal powers through usurpation would be difficult to control. Various evidences can demonstrate that the Doctrine of Incorporation is a heretical interpretive theory which has insinuated into constitutional jurisprudence heretical notions that contradict the Founders’ intents. These heresies need to be exposed and refuted. A Constitutional Reformation is urgently needed to reform much of current “orthodoxy” and return American jurisprudence to its legitimate roots. (The Joy of Interpretation, pages 322–343)
5. ADVOCATE
Advocate for specific reforms in interpretive methodologies and doctrines they produce
CCR is advocating for reforms in how the justices of the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution. We are striving to persuade the Court to reconsider many of the longstanding assumptions regarding the Constitution and, specifically, current 14th Amendment jurisprudence. The Court should reject the interpretive methodology of Living Constitutionalism and its progeny, the Doctrine of Incorporation, which have drawn the Court along the path of left-liberal Constitution rewriting. No justice should be confirmed to the Court who is not an originalist. Living Constitutionalists and non-originalists have no methodological framework to restrain judicial power to its proper role. They cannot resist converting the Constitution from law to politics, and from converting judges into politicians. Only by returning to a jurisprudence of original intent can the Court maintain the foundation of our freedoms, the separation of powers. Only then can judicial supremacy be democratically legitimate. When strict interpretation according to the fixed rules which govern interpretation of laws is abandoned, then the theoretical opinions of judges are allowed to control meaning. Then we no longer have a Constitution and are under the government of individual men, who have the power to tell us what the Constitution ought to mean, according to their own views. (The Joy of Interpretation, pages 295–332)
6. INCREASE
Increase Americans’ interpretive literacy in order to be more competent interpreters of the Constitution
CCR works to increase the interpretive literacy of Americans in two ways. First, it has the goal of equipping Americans with the interpretive principles and vocabulary needed for more careful and competent interpretation of our Founding documents. This hermeneutical training can provide necessary skills needed for becoming competent expositors and defenders of our legal documents of ultimate authority. Second, hermeneutical training can equip Americans to recognize interpretive fallacies and error patterns which can distort and betray our Founding documents. Recognizing and reversing interpretive fallacies, obvious or subtle, are necessary if a Constitutional Reformation succeeds in reigning in unrestrained federal power and returning America to its legitimate governmental roots. As competent jewelers learn to discriminate between real diamonds and cubic zirconias, so must Americans learn to discriminate between real constitutionalism and that which is the product of exegetical incompetence and maleficence. The exponential growth in federal power and the usurpation of vast areas of the States’ jurisdictions are undermining authentic American federalism. Americans, by means of a Constitutional Reformation, must replace the current Incorporated era with an Un-Incorporated era, thus returning the Bill of Rights to its intended purpose. (The Joy of Interpretation, pages 1–103)
