Let's be Fair
Which is better?

Americans democratically deciding to amend the Constitution, in the representative manner described in the Constitution.

or

Unelected judges deciding for all of us that the Constitution now means something that it didn't before.

I have to agree with Jonah Goldberg.

When people say that the Constitution, as written, is an evolving document they are in effect saying it can mean anything -- and therefore nothing. What is really at stake is a conflict of visions. Conservatives believe that if the Constitution's meaning is permanent. If we want the Constitution to say something new, it should be amended not reinterpreted. Liberals believe that the Constitution is a malleable, metaphorical mirror of all good things. If the community decides that gay marriage is good, then the Constitution must support gay marriage. That to me is a far more offensive abuse of our most precious document than trying to amend it.

Though, I'm afraid that the "malleable, metaphorical mirror of all good things" view of the Constitution is shared by a large majority of Americans. Most Americans don't seem much troubled by Constitutional reinterpretation. But to me, when an unelected few are deciding issues of law outside their Constitutional mandate, what is it if not tyranny?

- posted by The Dutchman @ 9:36:00 PM