[mrsmith]

"one of the reasons for the Constitution's success is that it is really a mere blueprint, compared, for example, to a lot of state constitutions, which are much more specific and detailed, and have to be changed all the time. "

The reason for this is that the states have general instead of limited powers.

The use of the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution so that the federal government is general in power like the states has been a grave mistake.
The missing spirit of experimentation and boldness that he bemoans is the result of the states no longer being allowed to act boldly, and the federal government still not being fit to.

A stricter interpretation of the Fourteenth would solve that better than amending the Constitution.

I am glad to see a leftist admit that their desires (gun control, campaign finance) should be accomplished by amending the Constitution. That shows some respect for the Founders.

[Noachian]

The use of the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution so that the federal government is general in power like the states has been a grave mistake.

You're correct. The High Court has been permitted, by Congress, to usurp Congressional power, and ordain itself the final authority on Constitutional law. The Fourteenth Amendment was just a convient tool that happened to be handy for the liberals on the Court to use - they didn't really need it. Since the Constitution is what the High Court Justices say it is they would have made arbitrary changes with or without the Fourteenth.

I doubt, though, that there was any "mistake" made on the part of Congress. Congress has the Constitutional authority to prevent the Court from Judicial excesses, but Congress does not use that authority to prevent its own loss of power as one would expect. Instead it stays silent when the High Court issues rulings that clearly abuse Judicial standards and usurp Legislative authority. Why?

The answer could be the liberal fillled membership of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary as well as those Subcommittees that deal with the Courts and the Constitution. The fact that the High Court is creating doctrines of its own, such as "incorporating" the First Amendment into the Fourteenth., can only happen if the High Court is immune from the scrutiny of the various Committees on the Judiciary. If the liberals that makeup those committees favor High Court activism then the excesses we see in the Judiciary can clearly be laid at the door of the Congress.

A stricter interpretation of the Fourteenth would solve that better than amending the Constitution.

An interesting thing about the Fourteenth Amendment is the use of it in religious matters. In cases involving religion the First Amendment establishment clause, and the fiction of the "wall of separation", the Fourteenth has been said to "incorporate" the First. But, the First Amendment has more to it than the clause guaranteeing religion.

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press, yet we hear no new doctrine from the Court restricting the New York Times. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech yet we hear of no new doctrines restricting Brown University teachers in their attacks on conservative principles. The First Amendment gaurantees freedom of assembly, yet we hear of no new doctrines restricting gay pride parades. The only time we hear about the "incorporation" of the First Amendment into the Fourteenth is in a case involving religion.

It's clear that in matters religious the High Court has a prejudice, and since the Judicial Committees of the Congress fails to look into this prejudice the Congress is complicit in any ruling handed down by the High Court that affects First Amendment religious rights.