>>>>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
>
>There are those that argue that abortion is illegal by the constitution based on 'equal protection.' However, even Judge Scalia doesn't think it should be illegal, just not determined legal by a court case but rather by legislature. I heard him make that statement. Being a constitutionalist as a judge doesn't mean returning the constitution to its original for before amendments, but rather ruling based on the constitution and amendments and not legislating from the bench.

I know that. I was commenting on McCain's apparently not knowing that (or more likely, not thinking through the consequences of what he was saying about it).

Tamar