ninme

A couple months ago I said in the comments of (I think) Bubblehead’s blog something along the lines of (too lazy to look it up cuz it’s hard searching for stuff in his comments) (believe me, I’ve done it often enough) how the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, A. Interpreting A, they reach B. Fine. But the next time it comes up, the Supreme Court, rather than interpreting A, interprets B (reaching C, next time interpreting C, and so on). So it’s as if, with every decision they hand down, they’re amending the Constitution, disregarding or making redundant what’s actually written there, what they’re actually meant to be interpreting. And one of his commenters said something like (paraphrasing from hazy memory) “Oh that’s absurd, you’re being ridiculous, and you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Power Line - Forum Post of the Day

This post is actually a couple of days old, but it’s too astonishing not to share:

My son’s high school American Government text book lists two ways to amend the Constitution - the formal two stage amendment process and the “informal process”. The Informal Process is described as “Judicial interpretation and social, cultural and legal change…” That alone should tell you the mindset of those in charge of public education.

I suppose you could argue that it would be a good thing to talk about the Constitution this way: “Yesterday, Justice Blackmun and six colleagues amended the Constitution…” But it doesn’t sound like the textbook intended to blow the whistle on the “informal process.”