There has been a fair bit of discussion regarding the Constitution on The Other Club of late. I commend this site, run by The University of Chicago, if you’d like to research the title of the post.
On the opposite pole from the ideas of the Founders, you’ll find a couple of high profile Democrats puffing about what’s wrong with our current constitutional processes, though it’s likely one of them doesn’t even know what those are.
P. J. O’Rourke reports that John Kerry is seeking control over what information is allowed to be given to the benighted red-state voters (presaging Howard Dean’s comments this weekend in Canada), and Barbara Boxer demonstrates her incredible lightness of mind by actually revealing her anti-constitutional thinking regarding judicial appointments not made by a Clinton.
Boxer admits she has changed her mind on the filibuster since she has been in the minority. She neglects to mention that the Republicans never filibustered judicial appointments, or that the constitution explicitly gives the Senate the right to write its own rules.
Kerry and Boxer have not proposed constitutional amendments to enact their desires. They’re probably thinking, respectively, that the FEC will accomplish the first and the filibuster against Bush judicial appointees will last until Hillary can be elected.
These two are out of step with Judicial Activism’s Perfect Storm, as Thomas Lifson points out on Real Clear Politics.
Along with Dean, they must look in the mirror every morning and say to their reflections, “The American people can’t be that stupid!… Well, actually, they are. We’re just not getting our message out in a simple enough form.”
I hope they keep having that little conversation. They do listen to themselves.