|
I don't have any problem with the Constitution as a living document and much of that does come through intentional vagueness.
I also believe that over time the judiciary has usurped much of the authority of the legislative branch through a desire not to interpret law as it relates to the constitution but rather to provide justice and make moral decisions.
I disagree with Roe v. Wade for example, not because of what it instituted. I believe that abortion should be legal and freely available but for the Supreme Court to have created the right requires them dictating the answer to social questions rightfully handled through the democratic process.
Essentially, I think the court has increasingly decided that should is a synonym for must. This is increasingly true of the legislative branch as well, but at least they're the appropriate repository for most such decisions and can be overturned in less than a generation.
Steve: many would say that the only reason the federal government has 100% power of us is because of the Supreme Court's past complicitness in allowing it (mostly through the expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond all reasonable bounds).
I would prefer a much more small "c" conservative court. When society has so changed that the Supreme Court's rulings seem out of bounds then it will be a sign that it is time to amend it (I don't buy the "we shouldn't amend the consitution very much argument").
|