Your question is nonsensical. The Solicitor General doesn't "re-write" the Constitution when he files an opinion with the Supreme Court on a case. Ted Olson's comments on the scope or intent of the 2nd Amendment expressed the Bush Administration's position on this legal question. If a Demo Administration choose to express differently, it still wouldn't be "re-writing" the Constitution.
Your question is nonsensical. The Solicitor General doesn't "re-write" the Constitution when he files an opinion with the Supreme Court on a case. Ted Olson's comments on the scope or intent of the 2nd Amendment expressed the Bush Administration's position on this legal question. If a Demo Administration choose to express differently, it still wouldn't be "re-writing" the Constitution. If a Democrat Administration did this you would be saying more than they were "re-writing" the Constitution. Words like trashing, destroying, warping, disfiguring would be words you would probably use. Did I mean he was literally "re-writing" the Constitution? You and I both know that I didn't, but far be it from you to miss an opportunity to twist what I said and avoid the point of the question.
So, answer the question and stop your spinning.