Reply #33: Good, well-written explanation - thanks....BUT

[Pert_UK]

to me, that means that you have things backwards.

It seems that rather than worry about what is right, practical, sensible or effective in the current situation and adapt laws to address the problems of the day, you are crippled by the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to show disrespect for this venerable document, but it seems bizarre to me that it is regarded as a "Holy of Holies" and untouchable.

Few people would doubt that the Constitution was written by honest men with the best of intentions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be infallible throughout eternity. There is nothing wrong with forming a view that takes the Constitution into account - in fact it's the only way in the US - but one should not blindly follow the document and be convinced that one is doing the right thing, because it's no guarantee.

I accept that there are methods through which to amend the Constitution, and that they ought to be followed where Constitutional change is required. However, to suggest that there is some objective way that the Constitution can be read, without interpretation or bias, is just plain wrong.

Every reading of every piece of law involves individual interpretation - that's why lawyers make so much money and why there are so many stupid branches of Christianity. If there were an obvious and clear objective reading of the Constitution then there wouldn't be this argument because everyone would be able to see it.

What you seem to be doing is assuming that one interpretation of the Constitution is the correct and objective one and that everyone else is failing to see it. In actual fact, various different people see sections of the Constitution as meaning or implying different things, and that is where the problems lie here.

Of course, I'll still say