>Aside from all that, of course, the founders included the ability to amend _because_ they understood that things change. They wanted a living document that would serve the country for the long term.
>
>Tamar
I don't think the amendment process is in question. The issue is judicial mandate or "legislation from the bench" Frankly, that often turns out in ways I like, but I do find the idea a little disturbing. I think a responsible arguement can be made for separation of powers, without accusing somebody who refers to anything the framers did or said as an effort to roll back all amendments and social progress since 1789. ( So Whoopi gets a big whoop by saying McCain wants to make her a slave and Ted Kennedy mau-maued the whole issue 20 years ago.)
Good judicial decisions and good legislation (by the legislature) can be defended and legislated without demagoguery.
It is also worth noting the founding fathers were also cynical about investing power in appointed, life-time officials and it is doubtful they would have looked favorably on judges creating law.
Charles Hankey
Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened.
- Thomas Hardy
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
- Ben Franklin
Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
