Re:attorney generals? (Score 1)

That's certainly within the mainstream of the current liberal view of the courts and their relation to the constitution. To be upfront, I think I was a little thrown off by your "Libertarian" signature.

Still though, even if one has disdain for the nation's founders, or thinks the constitution is something akin to English Tort law, there are some things worth keeping in mind.

For one thing, by its very nature, the "constitution" does not have "evolving standards." For if it did, it wouldn't be a "constitution" would it? Instead it would be very malleable group of laws, not unlike those shared by many other nations.

This might sound trite (I do realize I'm not particularly eloquent) but if the constitution means whatever we want it to mean (what ever is popular or "in vogue" at the current time period) then it doesn't really mean anything at all. Much of the point of the constitution is that it is not a temporal document.

I should also point out that part of the majesty of the constitution is that we already are not "eternally beholden to an 18th century view of justice and morality." If we simply abide by the document, many of these matters would be decided by the voters (and their elected representatives) at the state level.

Something that often isn't taught is that part of the reasoning behind the constitution was that these matters shouldn't be decided by unelected judges (often removed from "the people"). I am amazed that so many are so willing to remove decisions from voters and hand them over to judges.

I'm not sure if you are a Libertarian or not, but if you are, then I would appeal to that sensibility within you. The constitution gives us the bulwark to guard against (what some think) are encroaching government powers during this current period of time. Since in your last response, you have already allowed that the constitution has "evolving standards," one wonders what you think of those "standards" evolving to permit the current FISA Laws.