Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Constitutional Amendment

The current controversy about the Marriage Amendment is interesting. But, maybe, it doesn't go far enough. In the third debate, President Bush explained that the reason for the amendment was (in part) to stultify activist judges who want to take a minority view in, say, Massachusetts and foist it onto the good folks of Ohio. The Marriage Amendment would presumably prevent that. But why stop there? Why not an amendment that actually restricts the judges from deviating from original intent. My first thought was to say something like "The Constitution shall be interpreted in accord with the intent of the Framers as expressed in the Federalist Papers. [and other preexisting documents]. Any decision to the contrary shall be inoperative." This is just the first thoughts. There must be a way to say it that would work.


Post a Comment

<< Home