Only an idiot would think it doesn't. Or are you one of Badnarik's nuclear nutjobs?
I'm just someone who thinks we should have rule of law, and if we want to change that law, we should go about it in the manner specified for doing it. Article V. Get to know it.
The fact that alterations to the application of the Constitution have been made is is no way justification for it.
The Australians can do whatever they want to their Constitution. It is, however, irrelevant to what we are doing and what we should be doing.
Mr. Dorf is, quite frankly, retarded. First of all, he never comes close to proving his thesis that James Madison is unable to reliably comment on the Constitution; he just states he will prove it and then doesn't relly come back to it.
Second, we don't have to rely simply on the text of the Constitution in order to see what the document was intended to mean. At the very least there's 85 letters to the American people telling them, in great detail, what the document is intended to do. Since it's the people who ratified the Constitution, after referencing the text, referencing what the people relied on to inform them of the document's intricasies seems a quite reasonable second step. After that, there's also the convention notes (for parts of it), and I can't imagine the Federalist papers are the only treatises written to the people in order to inform and convince them of the Constitution's utility.
Third, his "dilemma" of whether to accept the Cosntitution as it was understood at its ratification or as it's understood now is ridiculous for two reasons. First, we have to accept it as it was understood at its ratificiation for the simple reason that a changing meaning makes the Constitution worthless. If a few judges can alter its meaning on a whim, interpreting things into and out of it, saying it meant that but now it means this, then it really means nothing at all. Second, the question is flawed on its face because how many understand that Constitution now is colored in large part by how it's been applied and interpreted under this "living Constitution" bullcrap (especially to the lawyers who litigate it, who are instructed more in case law than the actual Constitution itself, according to my lawyer-buddies).
People more informed than yourself.
Would those be the same "informed" people who have kept every government from going to excess over the course of human history, including our own?
Pardon me if I have zero faith in them to do anything. Or you.
