Clarence Thomas was asked “Isn’t the Constitution a living, changing document?”. (His response was “no”.)
Doesn’t it make sense that if you want to change the Constitution you must follow the legal process and add an amendment? Shouldn’t we interpret the Constitution with the intentions of the founding father’s when they wrote it?
Clarence Thomas, “The hard case, is where your heart really wants to do something for somebody and the law says you have no authority. That’s when you see whether or not you are a judge or you’re lawless.”
Image from RawPixel.com
The world is full of people with good intentions. Personally I don’t wish for others to force their good intentions upon me.
Certainly the Constitution is not flawless and was a compromise. Our country would have fallen apart if the founding father’s hadn’t been able to compromise and agree to disagree. My position is that if we feel modern times call for changes then we need to follow the original process of amending the constitution, not letting the courts “interpret” it according to the current whim of the current members of the Supreme Court.
It’s time to vote out all the politicians that don’t adhere to the Constitution.
