>>>>>>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.
>>
>>I don't think that thinking is worthy of you, unless you are simply saying everyone believes law should only change the way they want. The issue is not change in the law but how the law is changed. As Tracy says, there is a legitimate case to be made that the constituion clearly gives the legislature the power to *make* (or amend) law.
>
>And the courts the power to interpret the wordings of those laws. The part I have a problem with is that whenever a court interprets the constitution in a way somebody doesn't like, they accuse the court of *making* law. They are the experts on constitutional law, not your average UT user or 'man on the street'. What bothers me most is the idea of presidents appointing judges to the supreme court who will interpret that law in they way they want it to be interpreted. That makes a mockery of the independence of the court system. And McCain pretty much came right out and said that's what he wants to do.

Laws are not supposed to be "interpreted" they are supposed to be written clearly within the framework of constitutionality. The courts are to rule on whether or not that has been acheived. McCain has said, as have others, that judges should be appointed who see the role of the judiciary in a narrower sense. In recent history, "legislating from the bench" has had a liberal cant but it could just as easily be the other way ( Taney comes to mind ) The issue is not having people appointed for life subject to no review who can create law. As I said, I have been generally pleased with the legislation done from the bench in the last 55 years, but I still find the idea dangerous.