strong constitution

Via MacStansbury, Judge Scalia rips 'living constitution' apologists:

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Jack Lewis goes on to comment:

A document that "bends" with the culture does little good when that elasticity is completely controlled by judges who live and work in a completely different culture than the people their decision affect...

But the philosophy of a "living document" becomes an open door to a power grab by a despotic oligarchy of judges. And we have seen that happen right before our eyes.

As an aside, why am I suddenly remembering the name "Living Bible"?