Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke Wednesday at the University of Texas at Austin in a lecture tied to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
He stated plainly that progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration and hence our form of government. Rights and dignities, he argued, come not from God but from government under that view, requiring a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.
This directly confronts the constitutional order. The Declaration affirms that governments are instituted among men to secure God-given rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed.
Progressivism's shift toward government as the source of rights inverts that foundation, eroding limited government, individual liberty, and the separation of powers the Founders designed to prevent tyranny.
Thomas's remarks underscore why judicial restraint and original understanding remain essential safeguards against activist reinterpretation that treats the Constitution as a living document subject to evolving political preferences.
The broader pattern is unmistakable. For decades, progressive ideas have gained ground in institutions, academia, and policy, fostering cynicism, hostility, and a recasting of pragmatists or moderates as institutionalists to justify departures from first principles.
Thomas urged young people, especially law students, to reject sitting on the sidelines, take ownership of the country, and summon the courage of the Declaration's signers.
The durability of the republic depends on citizens willing to defend those principles rather than surrender them to centralized power or fashionable ideologies.
In an age of executive overreach, judicial activism, and cultural pressure to conform, reclaiming responsibility for self-government is not optional; it is the duty that preserves liberty for the next generation.
