[liberallarry]

I wish I could predict the future (and had the answers) but I can't (and don't). We'll argue, and debate, and dispute (just as the framers did) and out of it will come some sort of consensus.

There was trouble right from the beginning - trouble writing the Constitution, trouble getting it adopted, trouble interpreting it. There's a wonderful article, "Founders Chic", in the September 2003 Atlantic Monthly. It helped me put things in perspective.

[Steelerfan]

Thanks for the suggestion and I will look the article up. I will be the first to admit that the concept of "framers' intent" is subject to as much spin as any other doctrine, there were obviously many framers with many different intents (though I always tend to fall back on the Federalist Papers in case of doubt). However, I believe there are a number of cases, such as the deth penalty, where there can be no legitimate argument over what the framers intended given the historical record. You can argue it is bad policy, you can argue that the constitution should be changed but you should not be able to argue it violates the document as drafted and as amended. Problem is that rather that amend the document in cases where times have legitimately changed, we keep fudging it. And every time we fudge it, we create the precedent to fudge it even worse the next time. End results is decisions like the Michigan affirmative action cases which have no basis in the document whatsoever, but can be justified by the judges' feelings and vague references to existing precedent.

I live in a state where legal concepts like statutes of repose have been overturned three times in the last 15 years as the composition of the elected Supreme Court has changed. It makes me nostalgic more a more honest, or maybe objective is a better word, standard for judicial decison making.

Have a good night, and thanks again for the recommendation.