There is 'living, breathing', and then there is amending to the point of hyperventilation.:rolleyes:

Exactly, WB - there have only been 26 amendments, and none since 1971. Two amendments cancel each other out (passage and overturning of prohibition), so that leaves 24. There were 10 with the original document, leaving 14. 14 amendments over 217 or so years is not a bad rate.

The amendment process should be difficult.

It is a difficult process, and for that I'm thankful. It would interesting to dig up past proposals and see what didn't pass.

Heh, and that happens to be one that I don't find vague at all. Again, the wording was chosen very, very carefully. Why is the "militia" clause in there if what they meant was "all people"? It's unnecessary otherwise.

But my point isn't to debate individual interpretations, so lets drop that for a moment. But if you want examples of vagueries...

"Unreasonable searches and seizures" - define unreasonable

define "probable cause"

define "cruel and unusual". Must it truly be cruel AND unusual, or is that really an "or". Wouldn't the definition of what's "unusual" change with the times by nature?

define "speech"

The thing didn't come with a glossary.

Yes, some parts are very specific and have very carefully chose words so as to impart specific meaning. Others are pointedly NOT specific and open to interpretation. With the amount of effort put forth by, and the raw brilliance of, those that penned it, I have a hard time believing they did not know how imprecise that wording was.

Unfortunately, the constitution contains at least two vague instances and combined they cause most of the problems.

What does "commerce" mean and what does "due process" mean. Both are terms where changing the definitions completely changes the scope of the federal government. Since now anything can be defined as "commerce" even if it only has a secondary or tertiary economic effect (me eating grain I grow in my own back yard reduces my need to buy it elsewhere, and since some of the elsewhere'es are in other states the federal government can regulate me growing grain in my back yard as interstate commerce) the federal government can claim an almost unlimited authority.

That is a word the framers almost certaintly did not view as "vague" but it has become vague over time. So I say ammend the constitution and define "commerce." If we think free abortion on demand should be a human universal right, amend the consitution to say so. We don't need hundreds of amendments but more than 14 in 230 years would probably be appropriate.

As it is, when you treat the constitution as some arcane scroll in which you have to squint and find the subtle hidden meanings, it makes the constitution a political document rather than a founding document. Rather than looking to it for guidance you battle over the right to interpret it. Yes, amendment should be difficult, but it is only so extremely difficult because we lack the willpower to actually focus on it, preferring to just hedge our way through it and then bitch if someone hedges the other way.

wendy, there are only six amendments that have made it out of Congress and then failed to get ratified by the states:

1. An amendment dictating the size of the House of Representatives (it is good that it didn't pass because under its guidelines we'd have several thousand representatives now).

2. An amendment revoking the citizenship of anybody accepting a foreign title or office without permission of Congress (permission is already required but no punishment is mentioned).

3. An amendment to prevent Congress from outlawing slavery (essentially saying it is up to each state).

4. An amendment giving Congress authority to regulate child labor (under 18); they've since pretty much taken that authority through the commerce clause.

5. The Equal Rights Amendment. Essentially recognizing sex in the way race is in the 16th Amendment.

6. Washington DC Voting Rights. An amendment to give Washington, D.C., full representation in Congress.

1-4 are still technically alive and could still become part of the Constitution if more states ratify them (good to know that slavery is still an open issue, technically). 5 and 6 had expiry clauses and are long dead.

If those examples were in the body of the constitution, I would agree with you. However, they are all in the bill of rights. Why was the bill of rights established? It was to enumerate certain rights that belong to the people that the government shall never be permitted to infringe upon. The Constitution would not have been ratified without them.

Looking at the 9th Amendment, it is clear that the bill of rights is simply a starting point to appease the original signatories. The Constitution is a limitation on government, not something that grants rights to the people. Those rights are understood without having to be enumerated. The states simply wanted the bill of rights as a show of good faith that the government truly would not and could not stop the people from doing such things.

So I believe that the bill of rights should have as "liberal" an interpretation as possible, and were designed to be as such. So, while it is true that "unreasonable" is widely open to interpretation, I don't see that as a problem. Eminent domain, however, is not widely open to interpretation. Interstate commerce is clearly definable, and therefore also should not be open to interpretation.

So, to define speech, it is anything that can come out of my mouth. Then we have the "well, can I yell fire in a crowded theatre" arguments, which goes to public safety, etc, and that has been argued for all eternity.

I am upset when the bill of rights is NOT interpretted liberally. More along the lines of speech - campaign finance laws clearly violate my free speech. I now cannot get on TV and say anything negative about an incumbant 90 days prior to an election. What? That is a clear violation of the first amendment.

I think the body of the constitution is beyond clear in the limitations set upon the government, and that is the purpose of the document.

Harriet Miers =

I'm just not sure about her. Bush keeps referring to her "values". I fear she may be the wrong kind of conservative.

I was wondering if you could expand on that for me. Just curious.
:)

The wrong kind of conservative, IMHO, is how I would define most republican candidates these days. People who are big-government, Christian-right fundies imposing their "values" on the rest of us. If Bush likes her "values", it doesn't bode well for how she'd vote on anything to do with gay marriage or a woman's right to choose.

The "right kind of conservative", IMHO, would be one that thinks gov't should have less power, not more, to determine how we live our lives.

You can say all the lofty statements you like about interpreting what actually is or is not laid out in the Constitution, but interpretation is just that, and personal beliefs do figure at least somewhat into the process.

However, like everyone, I don't really know *anything* about her, so she may very well be perfect for the job, we just don't know.