[Reagan Man]

>>>>That argument lies at the heart of the "living document" philosopy of Constitutional interpretation ...

The amendment process makes our Constitution a living document, but only to that extent. As George Washington said, the Constitution is a "guide" for each generation of Americans to govern themselves. As the world changes, so does the challenges facing America and her people. Focusing on the growing problems our society has had with illicit drugs in the last 50 years, I believe the Congress and the SCOTUS have acted in a responsible manner consistent with the best interests and welfare of the American people. Again, specific to this case only. Trying to override the Constitutional RKBA, or to find a right of privacy that allows pregnant women to kill their unborn babies in excess of 45 million dead since 1973, I draw the line.

[tacticalogic]

Focusing on the growing problems our society has had with illicit drugs in the last 50 years, I believe the Congress and the SCOTUS have acted in a responsible manner consistent with the best interests and welfare of the American people. Again, specific to this case only.

All well and good, but the question is not specific to this case only, just as the expansion of federal power under the New Deal commerce clause is not. The question is posed as separate from whether you agree with the objective of the laws. If you cannot separate the two and consider each on it's own, then the end is justifying the means, and the constitutional issues are irrelevant.

[Paige]

Acted in the best interest of the American People? Are you saying the "Eminent Domain" ruling was in the best interest of the American people? Plus, questionable rulings on Church and state, etc? This is absolutely astonishing and certainly not accurate!