adherence to an ideology leads to the kind of legal contortions done by Gonzales in order to make the law fit into pre-conceived judgment on what is the right thing to do. I read an interesting blog by a libertarian trying to reconcile his aversion to illegal immigration and his libertarianism.

That is a very good example and, agreed. That is, indeed, the danger of adhering too strongly to an ideology.

You are right, of course. I have personally had conversations that veer so far into interpretations that no statement has any longer any meaning.

Another point to ponder: adjeremce to an ideology leads to the kind of legal contortions done by Gonzales in order to make the law fit into pre-conceived judgment on what is the right thing to do. I read an interesting blog by a libertarian trying to reconcile his aversion to illegal immigration and his libertarianism.

That is precisely why I cringe and run from ideologies and stick to the pragmatic. No ism has my allegience. I have my personal ideals and taboos, and keeping those in mind, I choose among the options at hand as best as I can.

It’s remarkable how the Constiturion ‘clearly’ states whatever the political position of the reader of it is.

Well, one of the things I found interesting about Goldwater is that he, every now and then, says that he believes the government should do something, but that just because he believes the government should fix a particular problem, does not mean that he, then, should interprete the Constitution in a way it has never been interpreted before to push through his ideals.

I am a former law student as you might know and I know about interpretations: there is no such thing as an objective interpretation. It is impossible. Of that, I am fully aware. I am, however, also aware of the dangerous of a relativistic approach to legal interpretation. There is one story about an ancient roman legal scholar who was able to defend everything and, in the end, did not know true from false anymore, what he stood for, etc. (it’s something of a warning to those studying law).

My point? The same can happen to a nation.

Then, we get to the use of the Constitution as an argument. Every side of every issue cites the Constitution as ‘clearly’ backing its view. The fact is, there are wide gaps in thinking on 1) how the Constiturion should be interpreted, and 2) what its text implies for a specific issue.

It’s remarkable how the Constiturion ‘clearly’ states whatever the political position of the reader of it is.

On the whole, the push and pull of differences in the interpretation of the Constituion and, equally, on the issue of states’ rights is a good thing, as one side prevents the other from leading to disasterous extremes.

My gripe (and point of temper falshes) is that in the debates, neither side acknowledges that the other side exists legitemately.

I prefer the Sandra O’Connor approach of paying attention to how a law affects real people living real lives.

That some say had a great sense of what may come down the road. I say that they just had an incredible grasp of history.

Agreed. What they did was look at history and say ‘history repeats itself’, ‘human nature doesn’t change’, ’so this is likely to happen in the future again if we do not come up with something’.

Great students of history they were. All of them.

instead of trying to work within the rules determined by some great men.

That some say had a great sense of what may come down the road. I say that they just had an incredible grasp of history. But your right on the money, a law made that is not a constitutional amendment can be made easier than a constitutional amendment can, but it can also be easier to circumvent, to alter, to misuse.

I am not even American, and it is frustrating to me. It is almost impossible to believe that people just circumvented the great system you all have, instead of trying to work within the rules determined by some great men.

But that’s not what the Constitution says about the matter: you can increase the power of the federal government, but you have to change the law first

yes, we agree on that. And both parties have used the executive branch to try and increase their numbers in the Supreme Court, coupled with Legislative branches to circumvent the otherwise much harder process of Constitutional Amendments.

I use the recent comments a lot - could even use it to be expanded for that matter.

Okay, cool, I will have a look at it. Personally, I find it very handy as well.

re. states rights: I think that Goldwater makes a very good point when he writes that most politicians, since FDR seem to adhere to the following reasoning: if the states don’t do something well, the federal government should take care of it.

But that’s not what the Constitution says about the matter: you can increase the power of the federal government, but you have to change the law first. If you don’t, the danger is very real that, in the (near) future, your political opponents will use that same broad interpretation to push through their ideas.

We can connect that to Bush, for instance, with his view on executive power. Many Republicans trust Bush with this power, but they have to ask themselves, what if a Democrat is in power?