The United States suffers from a split personality today.

Over the last 150 years, progressives in the legislature, the presidency, and the federal judiciary have summoned up a second constitution from the ether, in the form of constitutional law made by judicial fiat.

In the guise of interpreting the Constitution, they have made a wholly new constitution that stands disembodied and separate from the original.

One might call it the ‘spirit constitution,’ since that’s how progressives usually refer to it. As in: “The ‘spirit’ of the Constitution contains a right to privacy, which makes abortion a constitutional right;” or “The ‘spirit’ of the Constitution contains a separation of church and state, so no prayer in schools,” etc.

For ease, think of those who approve the new spirit constitution as ‘spiritualists’ and proponents of the first Constitution as ‘originalists.’

The spirit constitution has come to dominate America’s cultural consciousness. The lightly educated even assert that spiritualist notions explicitly exist in the original Constitution. When challenged, they are often flabbergasted they can’t find them anywhere.

For example, the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ comes not from the Constitution but was lifted from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, then egregiously misapplied by the Supreme Court to forcibly secularize America according to progressive beliefs about the proper modern society.


In their pivot to a spirit constitution, the Supreme and federal courts have come to resemble seances more than a sober judiciary.

Justices dim the lights and claim to hear voices from the other side that tell them what the Constitution ‘really’ means. As with other mediums and clairvoyants, the judiciary’s spirit constitution was a spectacular grift at the expense of the American people. In their eagerness to ‘correct’ the errors and omissions of the Founders, the federal courts end-ran the Constitution’s mechanisms of amendment and assumed to themselves the legislature’s prerogatives of lawmaking.

The federal and Supreme Courts deviated from their original purpose of arbitrating technical questions about the Constitution’s application and became in effect a high priesthood of American culture. They took on the responsibility of shaping America’s moral and philosophical makeup by force. Originalists fought this legal disembodiment with all their might, but they have lost at every turn.


The two constitutions now contain two broad and destructive contradictions. The first contradiction is how they treat groups.

The written Constitution protects a few enumerated groups from the government. The groups include the states, citizens, churches, firearms owners, critics of government in speech or print, property owners, and people accused of crimes. These protected groups possessed the virtue of clear and objective criteria. Barring a few outlandish scenarios, it’s not hard to define who states, gun owners, citizens, or accused criminals are.

In contrast, the spirit constitution takes a view of groups akin to angelology, imagining the groups into existence with highly subjective or downright unverifiable criteria, then discussing them as though they were objective.

Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, illness, economic status, wearing a certain *hair style*, and myriad other categories all qualify as protected groups now.

Moreover, the spirit constitution doesn’t just protect groups from the government. It protects them from employers, institutions, more successful protected groups, landlords, and countless other entities.

If the fuzziness isn’t apparent–and we are so accustomed to these factitious groups that sometimes it isn’t–try coming up with an objective definition of African American, gay person, or poor person.


A second contradiction in the constitutions comes from outcomes.

The first Constitution shields individuals in a protected group from governmental abuse, and outcomes are left up to God. An accused criminal always receives a trial before his peers and cannot be forced to testify against himself. He is guaranteed a process, not an outcome. Nowhere does the first Constitution say the accused criminal cannot be fired by his employer, or that an employer must hire a certain number of accused criminals.

In constrat, the spirit constitution guarantees outcomes to groups at every turn. For example, not only can an individual not be fired for his race, but if a *group* are not hired in correct numbers, the courts may step in and force businesses to hire more, citing the thought crime of “systemic bias.” The spirit constitution requires the government to manage group outcomes in the name of equality when God gets it wrong.

Legal bedlam has ensued. In their well-intentioned effort to institute fairness, spiritualist courts and legislators spend an ever-increasing portion of their time struggling to quantify and define protected groups. Recall the recent example from Harvard University, which stands accused of excluding one fuzzy protected group from its rolls (Asian students) to bolster enrollment of other fuzzy protected groups with lower average test scores (black and hispanic students).

The legal process has devolved into a carnival: mind-reading, juggling, casuistry, and whack-a-mole have replaced objectivity, order, and common sense.

Contradictions between the constitutions usually sift out in favor of the spirit constitution and against the first Constitution. A salient example is gerrymandering. The first Constitution gives state legislatures the right to draw voting districts, full stop. But if spiritualist judges divine that voting districts disadvantage groups, they reach down from the federal bench and redraw the lines, in effect blowing their noses with the first Constitution.


Pundits and lawmakers play the fatuous game of “Who’s the ‘real’ racist?” because it contains a deadly serious kernel. Under the new and ascendant spirit constitution, racism and similar group transgressions are *unconstitutional*. 

In order to bolster their own legitimacy and undermine the legitimacy of their opponents, public figures–both Democrat and Republican–strive to prove their spiritualist bona fides to the public.

President Trump has chosen to buck the trend. A while back when he posted to Twitter that Rep. Ilhan Omar—a black, Muslim, immigrant, and woman—should “go back” to where she came from and fix things, he thumbed his nose at four protected groups, as well as a culture that has fetishized them.

Most Americans don’t realize it, but the president’s Twitter post amounted to a crossing of the Rubicon. His post wasn’t a challenge to four obnoxious congresswomen; it was a challenge to the legitimacy of the spirit constitution’s ideals.

One cannot overstate the seriousness and magnitude of the president’s words. He pronounced the woo-woo spiritualist constitution illegitimate. He signaled his intention to criticize whom he wants regardless of their protected status, unlike other conservative presidents in the last 60 years. President Trump went to the mattresses to reassert the first Constitution and halt the cascading relativism infecting American law and culture.


The president’s challenge to the spirit constitution leaves average citizens in a terrible bind.

Most Americans—including many conservatives—support the notion of protected groups. They *like* that the law gives historically marginalized groups added protections and rights. A majority of Americans take pride in their country’s special legal protections for black citizens, women, minority sexualities, the poor, and the disabled, no matter how loosely defined.

Only in the last 30 years has the situation grown ridiculous and untenable for the conservative half of America. Legal protections have crept out to include transgender bathrooms and sports ‘rights’, affirmative discrimination in hiring and education, forced baking of cakes for gay weddings, and other outrages against common sense and individual liberty.

 Moreover, as the Equality of Group Outcome Doctrine took precedence over all other constitutional ideals, conservatives have found the first Constitution’s protected groups marginalized or voided: “Sure you can live as a Christian, refuse to rent someone your property, or criticize a congressperson … *unless* someone can argue a protected group is harmed in *any* way. Then you get the hammer.”

As the Kavanaugh circus demonstrated, even the accused’s right to the presumption of innocence may be voided now if it conflicts with the interests of a protected group, i.e. victimized women.

The president has handed Americans a binary choice: do they fully adopt the spirit constitution as the supreme law of the land and the bedrock of their culture, or do they tack toward the first Constitution and an originalist view?

Americans should choose carefully. If the spirit constitution becomes the supreme law of the land, new group protections may reach unimaginable and ludicrous heights. It’s not inconceivable that the originalist group of “citizen” will be erased in the interests of protecting groups such as foreign minority immigrants; or that pedophiles will soon become a legally protected spiritualist group, alongside transexuals and homosexuals. Are Americans ready to be sued or flogged in the court of public opinion for the hate crime of ‘pedophobia’?

If Americans choose to return to the first Constitution, prepare for a brawl. No human being is more angry than one who has had his special privileges taken away. Protected spiritualist groups will band together and fight to the death defending their immunity from criticism–heaping shame, ill intent, and judicial harassment on anyone who question the legitimacy of the spirit constitution.