[Wallace T.]

Please note my comments on post #29. The Supreme Court was not intended to a secular Papacy, and its interpretations of the Constitution have varied over the years, based on the political philosophy of the Court's members. Was segregation of schools Constitutional in 1896 but un-Constitutional in 1956? Were minimum wage laws un-Constitutional in 1935 but Constitutional in 1943? Was abortion not a "woman's right" in 1873 but a "woman's right" in 1973?

I, for one, am not going to cling to the theory of stare decisis when we are dealing with the judicial activism of jurists like Earl Warren or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose beliefs are poles apart from those of the Framers, even from men like Alexander Hamilton, who believed in a broad interpretation of its provisions. Either we follow the Constitution as originally intended, as delineated in The Federalist Papers and the debates in the various legislatures at the time of the Constitution's adoption or we amend it by the procedures outlined in that document. Otherwise, we should scrap it and end the pretense we are a nation of laws.

[templar]

Either we follow the Constitution as originally intended, as delineated in The Federalist Papers and the debates in the various legislatures at the time of the Constitution's adoption or we amend it by the procedures outlined in that document

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Supreme Court deciding issues of the constituitiion is intended in the constitution. And the consitituion is ammended by the priocess described in the constitution. Untill we have an ammendment altering, regulating, or abolishing the function of the USC, all of it's decisions are constitutional decisions.