[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nah, I've written longer ones. Besides, it's actually two sentences. There's a period in there amongst all the words.

And indeed it is. I was starting to prep for dinner and perhaps not giving your post my full attention.

Spot on. Not only the tone, style, shading, intent, and progressive view of govt. got my attention. Above all, his blatant, if not refreshing honesty. I don't think he meant any part of it to be taken as tongue in cheek.

The idea that a Constitutional professor of 40 years would suddenly advocate ripping it up resembles a literary hook more than anything else.

How do you use the Constitution as a divisive "tool" except by claiming that it stands in our way? Divisions of political opinion exist naturally outside of it. The Constitution unites divided opinions within a structure of government that allows those differing opinions to coexist. But its structure "divides" government powers in order to check and balance those powers against the tyranny of an undivided, unitary central government. It unifies the nation and guarantees the union of sovereign differences by dividing its own power. That is what makes it a constructive "tool" rather than a divisive one. Those who wish to eliminate the "divisive" checks and balances, as progressives do, in favor of a central power that acts in unison will impose favored opinions against the unfavored, and will be divisive of society.

While I'd agree with your description I think that's also a central argument made by the Opinion...perhaps you and the author share more than you'd care to admit?

Often the problem is not just the right thing to do, but who is to determine that right thing. The Constitution doesn't create solutions, it determines who is responsible for those solutions. Why we so often go astray and why it is so often hard to determine what the Constitution means is that power is expressed by those who do not have constitutional authority to express it. That is determined by the structure and language of the Constitution, and that is not vague or indeterminate. The problem with the progressive view of government is that ultimately a central group of experts have nearly unlimited authority to express and enforce power.

I'd disagree that the structure and language of the Constitution is always that clear. While the Founding Fathers were certainly remarkable it's not like those who have followed have all been inept. Interpretations over the last two centuries are just as much a part of the American fabric as are the original words or subsequent amendments.

-spence