Edward,

Following your logic, we should all go out and buy rubber rulers to measure everything important, or, better yet, do away with measurements altogether and just define one-inch or one-foot to be any convenient length, based on the whatever we need.

What total foolishness. The Constitution is a steel ruler against which we measure every law and every whim of every politician. It is the Supreme Law of the Land, which protects us citizens from corrupt politicians who want nothing more than to take away our rights and freedoms for their political gain.

If you have no respect for the Constitution, you have no business being in politics. There is a way to change the Constitution. If your cause is good, get the three-fourths of the States to agree with you.

Edward, just what is the method for changing the Constitution? Do we amend it through a democratic process as the founding fathers provided, or do we do it undemocratically through unelected judges as your party prefers?

DMN, Any chance you guys could insert links to the referenced articles or letters instead of just saying "(Readers' Forum, May 5)?"

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

The merit of our Constitution is not that it promotes democracy, but checks it. —HORATIO SEYMOUR (Democrat Presidential nominee (times change, don't they?))

Casey, we do both since that is the process we have that works well in our country. In other countries the people don't have this and look at what becomes of those countries.

The majority still has the final say and any Court decision that isn't in agreement with the will of the majority will not stand up, will be reversed and if necessary the Constitution will be amended. You make it sound like Supreme Court and appellate court decisions are final but they aren't. They are a way for us to do peacefully what we would have to do violently or would require everyone to vote on every constitutional issue.

I can't speak for anyone else but I just don't have the time to vote as frequently as would be required and I think you are confused if you believe the Founding Fathers were supportive of "democracy" in the sense that you use the word.

In fact, the only one I can think of who would even come close to your view is Thomas Jefferson but certainly Madison, Hamilton, Gorham and Washington don't agree with your view of democracy instead they favored a republican form of government.

Mike, it seems to me that you fail to grasp that you aren't the only person who can understand the Constitution.

In my letter I pointed out that the process is in place to allow the majority and our representatives in Congress and on the Courts to make decisions for us. This takes a while but it does work and we always have the option of amending the Constitution if necessary but a future generation can undo what we did in amending it if they choose.

I always have a deep respect for the Constitution but that doesn't mean I share your understanding of it or will allow you alone to define it. You telling I have no business in politics doesn't mean much since I was called everything from inherrently dishonest to a traitor when I ran for office so if that is how you feel than so be it. Just don't think I am going to agree with you.

P.S., I won't respond to any post until after 6:00 tonight since I work all day.

I agree with Casey, Mike Richards and Reality Bytes. Justice Scalia's position is that the Constitution is silent on abortion and therefore it should have been handled democratically. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that darling of the rubber constitution crowd, has said that if abortion had been handled democratically it would not be the hot botton issue it is today. She believes that the outcome would have been the same, but that there would not be the anger and even disenfranchisement that has resulted because of the way it was settled (sort of settled).

The Constitution is not made of steel but of words, and words are notoriously slippery things. Just ask 10 people what "well-ordered militia" means, and you'll get the same number of opinions depending on their politics. So whose opinion is correct? Thankfully, the founders provided for that too--they created a judiciary to interpret it.

We ARE NOT a democracy. We are a Republic, a little different than democracy and therefore, how our current political system is pushing it as "democracy" is false. The FF intentionally made our Constitution a Republic form of government to prevent any one political power, or one individual to usurp power (Washington said something of this prior to his departure from the Presidency).

Up until 1937, everything done was "within" the bounds of the Constitution. Since the days of FDR's "New Deal", it's been nothing but one party or individual trying to usurp power that is not within their rights. Get a clue people.

"The Constitution is not made of steel but of words, and words are notoriously slippery things. Just ask 10 people what "well-ordered militia" means, and you'll get the same number of opinions depending on their politics. So whose opinion is correct? Thankfully, the founders provided for that too--they created a judiciary to interpret it."

So what exactly does this comment mean? I don't understand what you are saying. Your post is confusing. Is there any authoritive source somewhere who can interpret this post so that we the small minds can understand the meaning of these profound words? Maybe a Urim and Thumim can be found to translate these words. Someone call the 9 people in black robes so they can tell us.

I wonder what Jefferson meant when he said, that the Constitution is not subject to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court is subject to the Constitution. Shall we ask the subject to interpret the master?

Words have meaning! We the people means just that, otherwise they would have used we the government. History has relevance. There is nothing unambiguous in the founders language, only ignorant people who have agendas.

I wonder how many of these defenders of the Constitution ALSO subscribe to the Bush Administration's insistence that the President is the "Unitary" executive and can, citing the commander in chief clause, do pretty much whatever he wants to anyone, foreign or American.
And this year we have a candidate who actually TAUGHT Constitutional law at the college level.

Some people are amazing. How can you honestly say that the Constitution is a fixed, immovable object? The precious "founding fathers" put in a system to change it (amendments). It is ironic that this "fixed" document describes the means to change it. People on ALL sides interpret the Constitution. Bush has been particularly interested in extending the scope and power of the executive branch (e.g. we are in a war that has not been declared by Congress, his secrecy regarding visitors to the White House, to name a few). He, and his philosophical allies on the Supreme Court, are interpreting the Constitution, creating new definitions of existing clausees.

This letter writer, Edward, is absolutely correct. If the Constitution had never been changed, women and minorities would not now be voting, we would still be a slave nation, segregation would reign, etc.

Let's be real here. We ALL KNOW the Constitution has changed over time. The real issue is whether these changes reflect personal philosophy. If you like the change, then change is great! If you disagree with the change, then the Constition is immovable. Let's at least be honest with ourselves...

Mark B -- You seriously misunderstand the concept of the "unitary executive."

That concept simply means that all executive agencies are arms of the ofice of the executive -- that is, the President. It absolutely does not mean that the President can do anything he wants. That's a canard foisted on the constitutionally illiterate by propagandists.

As for changing the meaning of the Constitution, that depends. On some points -- like the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment" -- a case can be made that the meaning of the text might shift according to what the present generation considers cruel and unusual. On the other hand, when the words of the Constitution had a clear, known meaning at the time they were framed, we're bound by that understanding. The Constitution's only legitimate authority derives from it having been enacted with the consent of the American people at a particular point in time. When unelected judges impose a different meaning on that text, the new interpretation is not supported by any true democratic legitimacy.

There was never any democratically-expressed consent of the American people, for example, to be governed by a Constitution that prohibits regulation of abortion.

Edward's rebuttal (8:01 a.m.) shows one of the problems we're having when we talk about the Constitution. His interpretation of my post (6:34 a.m.) infers that when he read my post, he extracted a meaning that I did not write. "If you have no respect for the Constitution, you have no business being in politics." The word IF is conditional, meaning IF that part is true, then the second part comes into play. IF the first part is false, the second part never comes into play.

A public servant on the Federal level takes an oath of office, which includes swearing allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. The public servant has primary allegiance to the Constitution and secondary allegiance to the people who elected him/her. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and must be obeyed when legislation is drafted by Congress and when legislation is executed by the President.

When contentions arise over the Constitutionality of legislation, the Supreme Court is duty bound to settle the matter - within the boundaries set by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no authority to add or subtract anything from the Constitution.

@you people - And just what would you call H.J.Res. 114 passed by the 107th Congress in October 2002? I would call that a vote to use force in Iraq, left to the discretion of the President. That's what they voted on, and it passed by a wide margin. In other words, Congress voted to go to war in Iraq.

"You people" -- You need to acknowledge that President Bush is not exactly a pioneer in the area of waging armed conflict in the absence of a declaration of war. John Adams kicked off the practice with an undeclared naval war against France in 1798. Thomas Jefferson fought undeclared wars against North African city-states throughout his administration, as did James Madison. The Indian wars were all undeclared. So was the Philippine Insurrection under McKinley and Roosevelt (a nasty guerrilla war which killed far more American troops, as a percentage of the nation or Army, than the Iraq war has). FDR fought an undeclared naval war against Germany for almost a year prior to Pearl Harbor. Truman fought the undeclared Korean War, and either Kennedy or Johnson (depending on what historian you talk to, and what milestone you use as the kickoff date) got America involved in Vietnam. Reagan fought an undeclared war in Grenada, and George H.W. Bush fought the Gulf War.

The vast majority of America's wars have been fought in the absence of a formal declaration of war by Congress. It's an accepted practice, and nothing new.

"You people" -- Please point me to the provision of the Constitution that says the President has to publicize the identity of all visitors to the White House.

I love your "rubber Constitution" term. I suspect you came by it from Mike's post. I don't believe the Consitituion was meant to be stretched to cover whatever a judicial panel thinks it should cover. It was meant to be changed, but the process was also meant to be difficult. If people are too busy (meaning disinterested) to vote on whether a change should be ratified the Constitution shouldn't be changed.

From now on I when I hear "living document" refering to the Constituion I will think "rubber Constitution". It is a more honest appraisal of what is being said.

EVERYTHING is a secret to those guys, especially Cheney. Their goal isn't to inform the public, but to keep them in the dark while procuring immunity for themselves.

re: MEB and Thomas:

You guys are making my point for me. My point was not to pass judgement on those particular acts of President Bush. My point was that they are an interpretation of the Constitution.

THOMAS: I know the Constitution does not say that George Bush has to publicize who visits the White House. But in his defense of keeping those records secret, GWB has cited the Constitution's separation of powers clause. Therefore, he believes that the Constitution says that he DOES NOT have to publicize those records. But the Constitution does not specifically say that, so, therefore, that is an interpretation. It is based on precedent, yes, but nonetheless not enumerated in the Constitution.

MEB: H.J.Res. 114 is not a formal declaration of war. Read it. No where does it say, "We declare war on Iraq." GWB (and you, too) interpreted it in such a manner. You use the term, "in other words..." You have to use that term because the words you seek are not included. Interpretation!

Again, thank you both for making my point stronger. Namely, interpretation of the Constitution comes from all sides, from all parties, and is a needed and welcomed thing.

The problem with the Constitution is that it is a document with signatures at the bottem (all belonging to dead people).

Today, whoever is in power, interprets the rules and regulations in the document and acts accordingly.

If one disagrees with the power-brokers of the day interpreting those rules and regulations, they now get to go through the tedious and complex process that involves more attorneys than there are stars in the heavens.

We are ALL interpreters of our Constitution. That's why it was written... for "We the people".

We should all know what it says and what it means in our lives. No one should be put down for trying to understand his rights, expressing this understanding or dong what they can to protect them.

I would hope the intepretation DOESN'T change based on the whims of our current political regime. I think the Constitution is that one CONSTANT that doesn't change with elections, shifts in popular culture, etc. But I may be out of touch with reality.

This is all a smokescreen for the few hardcore neo-reds of Utah who STILL support Bush and Cheney's illegal, immoral, and unwinnable war that is clearly bankrupting the country.
I don't think even THEY know why they still support Vietnam-like mess other than it is a Republican administration that unilaterally started the whole mess and that's good enough for them.

I didn't vote for them.

>>I wonder how many of these defenders of the Constitution ALSO subscribe to the Bush Administration's insistence that the President is the "Unitary" executive and can, citing the commander in chief clause, do pretty much whatever he wants to anyone, foreign or American.<<

The president can do pretty much whatever he wants to... provided he has the funds. And Congress controls the funds.

Its obvious that government indoctrination, in the form of public schools, has made the overwhelming majority of the citizens, complete idiots.

The Constitution is written in plain english. It requires no law degree or PhD to understand what it is saying.

Great were the words of Franklin, when asked after the convention, what kind of government we had been given, and he replied "A republic, if you can keep it"

Well, we have lost it. We cannot even get our elected Congressphonies to pass legislation that requires all bills submitted, to reference the Constitution and where it authorizes the Congress to pass that particular law.

The kitty is out of the burlap. The Constitution is dead. We are a monarchy, just like the one that we tossed out of here over 230 years ago.

Our only hope is the Declaration of Independence which declares that:

" when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Are there any true statesmen left among us?

Thank you John (1:19 p.m.)

@ you people (again). My interpretation of H.J. Res. 114 should not be confused with an interpretation of the constitution. The constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. I merely pointed out that this resolution was Congress' way of declaring war.

Out of curiousity, when a governing body signs into law a resolution that authorizes the use of military force, isn't that a fancy term for war? Again, not interpreting the constitution, only what Congress was trying to accomplish with this resolution.

I see your point that everyone has the ability to interpret the constitution to fit their own agenda. I only took issue with this whole "Congress didn't declare war" idea. That resolution, even though many have tried to distance themselves from it, authorized the decision to go to war in Iraq. And, yes, I read it. If the government told me that if I didn't compy with one of their requests, they were authorized to use military force against me, I wouldn't expect a second letter inviting me to a tea party. No interpretation necessary.

Jefferson made it clear that government exists at all so as to protect freedom and inalienable rights. The Constitution can be amended to better address those issues that are not serving those ends. Because those rights are founded in moral or natural law they are immovable and not amendable. Or as Jefferson declared moral law is the law. It is the foundation whereby all other issues are measured.

The government was designed to both protect inalienable rights while limiting them to specific enumerated powers that would not contradict the very purpose that this government of, by, and for the people was established for to begin with.

Jefferson further emphasized this point when he said to bind down government by the chains of the Constitution. It was designed to be a non flexible document within those clearly defined parameters. In other words legitimate amendments that have been added sought to secure the inalienable rights that some (women & blacks) were being deprived of.

Some amendments (and others proposed) along with unconstitutional legislation both from the legislative and the judicial branches, attempt the very things the Constitution was designed to prevent. Infringe upon individual rights. They have not the authority.

you stole my name!

I have never liked the references to the "Founding Fathers", as if this was a collective of like minds that came to only one conclusion. People love to cite the founding fathers they agree with, while forgetting the many others that had contrary positions. The founding fathers had great debates, and compromises were made. And they were wise enough to know that situations would arise where the Constitution needed to be changed. If they couldn't agree, obviously those that followed would face the same situation.

"Inalienable rights" were added when men (and sometimes women) decided those rights were important (slavery, voting rights, etc.).

And I have a sneaking suspicion that among those that now defend the immutable Constitution are those that want to change the Constitution to define marriage. And yet the Constitution says nothing about marriage. People want it both ways.

Here's the deal (and I said something like this earlier): people love interpretation of the Constitution as long as it agrees with their personal philosophy. Roberts and Scalia interpret the Constitution. Ginsberg and Breyer do the same. Who is right? That's for us to interpret.

"You people," the problem is not "interpretation" of the Constitution. Obviously, because the Constitution is written in general language, some interpretation to adapt it to specific situations will always be necessary.

What judicial conservatives object to is the school of thought that declares that the actual text has no inherent authority -- that the Constitution is nothing more nor less than whatever a judge says it is. That is, even when the original meaning of the text is known, clear, and unambiguous, these people take the position that judges have the right to ignore the original meaning completely and substitute their own preferences. That's profoundly undemocratic, in my view.

Part 1

To the posters that talk about there being no declaration of war...

While you are correct that the Constitution to the USA enumerates the power formally to declare war, there have been many provisions over the years to allow the Commander in Chief to enter into hostilities with foreign entities; the most recent being the War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) which allows for the type of process and engagement that we are currently in with Irag and Afghanistan. Additionally declaring war and waging war are not the same and the Founding Fathers recognized this, Read Federalist Papers # 23 and 70 and check out an earlier draft of the Constitution which had a slightly different wording that made congress the authority for waging war which was changed to declaring war. They realized that there would be times when the President as the Commander in Chief would need to defend the country from invaders or attackers without an official declaration of war from congress, for example there was not declaration of war for the many skirmishes between Brittan and the US that did not have a declaration of war.

Part 2

Article II section 2 has been interpreted to give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; the US Supreme Court has affirmed this in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950); Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) and Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501, 515-16 (1927);

Justice Robert Jackson while Attorney General in 1941 formulated the best explanation of the President's authority as Commander in Chief :
"Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." By virtue of this constitutional office he has supreme command over the land and naval forces of the country and may order them to perform such military duties as, in his opinion, are necessary or appropriate for the defense of the United States. These powers exist in time of peace as well as in time of war.".

Part 3

The Constitution does not establish a mandatory, detailed, Congress-driven procedure for taking action (which is does for domestic legislation where Congress is central over the process and detailed in its execution). Rather, the Constitution vests the two branches with different powers - the President as Commander in Chief, Congress with control over funding and declaring war - without requiring that they follow a specific process in making war.

The question that has to be asked is: Did the President believe that removing Saddam was "appropriate for the defense of the United States"? The answer is yes. The next question is: Did Congress believe this? Yes, not only did they authorize the President to proceed per the War Powers Act, they have continued to fund the decision of the President as well. A declaration of war was not needed.

If the Democrats had a solid argument and foundation to support the idea that "no act of Congress can supersede terms set in the Constitution" they would jump at the chance to impeach the President, but the legal scholars and 100s of years of law have shown that there is no superseding of the Constitution.

John | 1:19 p.m. May 8, 2008

I agree with your position and would add:

"What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

I don't recall anyone appropriating funds for warrantless wiretaps, torture, extraordinary renditions, illegal party-funded White House e-mail systems, the payoff of both foreign and domestic "journalists", rolling over Congressional intent with presidential "signing statements" or lying to the public AND the world through the UN, but we have all of them anyway. Whatever the term means, it sure sounds "unitary".

Throughout all this nonsense (subtext: Conservatives are better than Liberals) I can hold my head high and with a sigh of relief and deep satisfaction and honor truly proclaim:

"DON'T BLAME ME - I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE FOOLS IN CHARGE TODAY."

So, where is Thomas Jefferson and the others when these constitutional disputes (always about power) arise?

Thomas, I cannot agree with you. I don't think you are understanding just how inherent interpretation is to Constitutional law. And you seem to contradict yourself. Tell me, if , as you say, the Constitution is written in "general language", how can the meaning of passages be "known, clear, and unambiguous" when applied to situations not explained in the document?

This is exactly the point. It is precisely because the Constitution IS in general terms that interpretation is so vital. And every judge does does it, conservative and liberal. The Constitution deals in generalities, and gives the means whereby it can be interpreted.

I believe you are exaggerating, too. I don't believe you could find many judges that act as you say, that openly disdain and toss aside the Constitution. Who are these judges? And I don't want your personal opinion regarding decisions. I want judges who have said it. Ironically, you have adopted the style of the Constitution, using generalities, talking about "these people."

amen @ John 1:19pm

amen @ this is not a democracy.

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag" (should be constitution, but oh well) ... "of the united states of america. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands..."

There's no reason for us to demean others including Justices who only reflect the various interests and groups in our society. Those of us who adhere to an absolutist view of the Constitution place themselves above the Constitution and above the people.

One poster has said "Someone call the 9 people in black robes so they can tell us." This type of sarcasm isn't okay. Those 9 people are no better and no worst than we are and they have the same right to interpret the Constitution and do so as a voice of (or from) the people and that's why we placed them on the Court because if we were to vote on every constituional question it would consume all our time and cause the country to have frequent elections, even monthly.

Judges aren't a different people instead they are our neighbors, our friends and our family but I guess sp,e feel that so long as we don't wear black robes we can interpret the Constitution.

Another thing, Jefferson was the man who believed each generation could write a new Constitution and weren't bound by previous generations. Monarchies are based on the idea that one generation can bind another.

Mike Richards,

I didn't infer any such thing. I fully understood the "if" of the statement and sought to rebutt it. Even people who don't respect the Constitution must live under it and therefore have as much of a right to be involved in politics as those who do. I don't accept the condition that a lack of respect for the Constitution means that those who disagree with it have no right to seek to change it or abolish it if that's their desire. So long as they do so within the system I'm willing to listen.

If they convince a majority to agree with them then they should prevail. Those who don't listen to those who don't respect our system force them to choose between bearing it in silence or resorting to violence like Timothy McVeigh and we don't need to create the kind of environment where people are forced between not being heard and resorting to violence.

We shouldn't impugn the motives of others simply because they don't share our opinions and we shouldn't make them think that they have to agree with us to be patriotic because that forces them to choose between patriotism and their opinion.

John,

It seems you have a very high opinion of yourself and think that the majority are idiots. This type of mentality will lead you to think that its your way or else. What will you do when the "majority" decides you are wrong? The Constitution is written in plain English but the rest of us including those we choose to serve as Judges can read English too.

Those "Congressphonies" live in our communities and represent those who vote for them. If you don't like how they vote you should vote for someone else but those who did vote for them have a right to be represented. The "Congressphonies" (a few went on to serve in Congress) who drafted the Constitution could have passed the law you mention but didn't so do you condemn them for not doing so or just those who won't now. Maybe they didn't pass that law for a reason and it could be that the reason is you are wrong and the supreme law of the land isn't the Constitution alone but instead is the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States but more importantly its those who make those laws.

"We the People!"