You know what you get when a handful of judges move away from being strict constructionists to an "evolving document," based on case history, or through their own little interpretations?
Roe v Wade.
Need I say more?
Let it go, Ivy. It's over
.
Well, I think my points stands in regards to the danger of getting too far away from what the Constitution
actually says. It tends to happen through activist judges and a segment of society who try to ramrod their agenda through the courts (and those activist judges.) There's a reason why liberals, in general, tend to favor the more "evolving" notion of the Constitution. Eventually, the original document and our laws will have little resemblance to each other.
The Roe v Wade thing is simply a perfect example.
