>>>>>>>>http://www.breitbart.tv/html/173183.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Talk about generating FEAR...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, her point wasn't any less valid than arguing Christianity as most people live it vs fundamental Christianity. It's one thing to want to abide by the constitution, but when you say "the way our founding fathers intended", then she's right. You have to wipe out all the amendments and go back to the original document. And yes, that would be a bit scary. Besides, the idea that he would like to have a supreme court that will interpret the constitution "the way our founding fathers intended" means categorically that he feels he has the inside track on their thoughts. If the court disagrees with his own thinking, then the are clearly not interpreting it "the way our founding fathers intended". And yes, that's a bit scary too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good point. And don't forget that the Constitution as originally passed didn't even include the bill of rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but the problem is that people like McCain believe it should change only in the way that they want. If it changes otherwise, then it is, according to them, not in the way the founders intended.
>>>>
>>>>And how are the Democrats different? They want the country to change to be exactly like they want. Each party is guilty of the same thing there.
>>>
>>>But McCain came right out and said it. I haven't heard of Obama doing the same.
>>
>>Please post, if you can, what he said exactly, because your understanding is different than mine I see...
>
>Relisten to the link you posted above. After Whoopie asks him about his meaning of strict constitutionalists. It's about the 25 or 26 second mark. Listen to what he says. If we are hearing it differently, then give me your take on what he is saying. It wouldn't be the first time I misinterpreted something.

I actually watched the entire show. I had it on while I was working and stopped to listen to the interview. He made his point that he wanted judges who interpreted the constitution and its amendments, not legislated from the bench. He wanted things not in the constitution or legislature to become laws by legislature or handled by the states. That was one of the goals of our current constitution was to leave some powers to the states to decide for themselves.

I'll listen to it again and see if I get a different meaning. On the same subject (sort-of), have you heard or watched the 60 minutes interview with Justice Scalia?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml