Re: Nothing sacred

No, I believe he's talking about *interpreting* the constitution and/or 
judicial activism, stuff like Roe v Wade, the Kelo decision, etc. 
Situations where *courts* have read things into the constitution that aren't 
in the text.  There is a distinct divide between "liberal" 
jurists/jurisprudence experts and "conservative" ones about whether the 
interpretation of the constitution should change with the times.

Amending the constitution is a very different thing and Prager is too smart 
to be ignoring that.  And I think he assumes that his mostly U.S. 
conservatives understands what he it talking about.  Amending the 
constitution is difficult, and it was meant to be.  An amendment has to pass 
both congressional houses by a 2/3 vote and then it must be approved by 3/4 
of the 50 states.

Mike F.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:03 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Nothing sacred

> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/256814

>> This explains the belief that is universally held on the Left that the
>> Constitution is an “evolving text,” meaning that it says what anyone
>> (on the Left) wants it to say.

Wow, he sure dodged the question of *amendments*, there, didn't he?





-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot 


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot