RUSH: Charleston, South Carolina. This is Ben, who told the call screener he is a liberal. It’s great to have you with us, sir.
CALLER: It’s good to talk to you, at least. I just wanted to say that the same people that say that we can look to the Constitution, things like this, this 300-[sic]-year-old document, are the same — and answer all modern-day questions you could possibly have, as far as this country is concerned, it’s the same kinds of people that said you can look to the Bible to answer any possible modern-day question you could possibly have. You can just go look at the gospels or anything that Jesus said and all of it’s right there for you. I just think that it’s a na?ve way to look —
RUSH: I’m sure you do, but, in the first place, you’re making comparisons of apples and oranges. The Bible is not the Constitution, and the Constitution is not the Bible.
CALLER: A lot of the things were written in the Bible that we take and put right in our Constitution, though.
RUSH: Well, thank you for saying that. Thank you for making the point that the Founding Fathers were deeply spiritual people and religious and thought that there were some timeless principles that would serve this country well. Now, I don’t know, you don’t even have to go to Jesus, Ben. The Ten Commandments are pretty comprehensive. I know the libs don’t like the Ten Commandments, because they’re judgmental, and they basically tell people what they can’t do, and the left doesn’t want anybody telling them what they can’t do. But, you probably think that since you oppose the Bible that you’re not a religious person, but I would submit to you that you are, and you may not even know it, you just have a different deity or god or a different set of principles. Even atheists are religious people. They don’t know it, and that’s the funniest thing about them, to me. But to draw a comparison between the Bible and the Constitution is fallacy, because the Constitution is the architecture of the country, and you most certainly can find answers to modern-day questions in it, and in fact, practically every Supreme Court ruling today claims to do just that. The recent Kelo ruling, they claimed that they found a method — an explanation for their ruling in the Constitution. They interpreted incorrectly, but they said that was their source. You should always look to the Constitution. You should always look to the original intent, because that’s the architecture of the country. This is the way we’re put together and I know a lot of the people on the left don’t like the architecture of the country, think that it’s inherently unfair and so forth and so on. But I don’t think you have a real-world view about this. I think that you have some pent-up resentments out there that are causing you to not like what’s in the Constitution so you don’t want it to be part of the fabric.
CALLER: I wouldn’t say that that’s necessarily the case. I mean, a lot of other countries have borrowed a lot of things from our Constitution. I think some of the things in our Constitution are amazing. But we shouldn’t just necessarily dismiss wholesale all of them, or dismiss wholesale everything that any other country could come up with. I mean, even though a lot of other constitutions from newer countries have taken things straight out of our Constitution, because they think they’re great and they speak to everyone.
RUSH: I keep hearing you make my point out there. If you actually meant to say what you just said, other countries borrow from our Constitution. I think you’re misunderstanding something. I’m not opposed to looking at how foreigners do things and making a judgment on whether we like that or not. In fact, Ben, I want you to listen. Please keep your radio on for the opening monolog in the next segment. I’ve got two fascinating stories about what’s going on in Denmark and the Netherlands, and it’s relevant to what you’re talking about. Now, sure, we can look to these countries for guidance on how we want to live our lives, but when it comes to the law, the Constitution is the source of law in this country, constitutional law, Supreme Court cases, constitutional law. There is no reason or excuse to look anywhere else if you don’t like what this Constitution says, because that’s not the role of the judges, and yet it is one that they have appropriated for themselves. But don’t misunderstand, nobody’s saying here that, “Hey, the French have a good idea not using under arm deodorant and toothpaste, we might to want incorporate it.” You’re free to try. Go ahead. If you want to drive around in a little golf cart or a little bicycle with a bubble on it and call it your car, go right ahead. Nobody is going to stop you. But don’t tell me that because the French do it, we have to do it. It’s an individual choice. When you’re talking about the law, though, especially when you’re going to appropriate law from a country that doesn’t have a constitution, that’s nothing more than judges not liking what they see in the Constitution because they disagree with it and wanting to make law out of their personal policy preferences and that’s not their role. It’s not hard to understand. The problem you have with it is that when they do that and it’s an issue you agree with you think it’s fine; that’s good because you’re being selfish, but you’re not thinking about the effect on the country and the long term and the future, and that’s why these decisions are important and that’s why the people that make them need to be remarkable.