--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <I snipped the atribution of the statement below by accident - I think it was Jon, though> > > Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be > interpreted. > > Exactly. > Doug
Well, I mean look, it's not intuitively obvious that the Equal Protection Clause is meant to include gay marriage. It might be fair to interpret that way, but it's at least possible to argue plausibly that it doesn't. Even more than that, sure, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted. But the more latitude you give judges to "interpret" the Constitution into whatever they want it to be, the more power you give into the hands of an unelected elite with little or no democratic legitimacy. Remember, _not all change is progress_. If you give judges the power to give you new "rights", _you give them the power to take them away_. The Constitution was not meant as an all-encompassing document that protects _all_ your rights, it was meant as a document that protects the _minimum_ of your rights, with far broader ones under legislative and executive protection. The more power you give judges, the more power they will have when those judges disagree with you - and then what are you going to do about it? Better that they have the bare minimum, with disagreements engaged in the legislature, where people can decide on things and accept the legitimacy of the decisions, not have them made for them by the arbitrary and unrestricted power of an appointed elite that has little or no contact with the American population. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
