Oh upside guy, I hate to shatter your fragile little world view, but not all people in a group think alike. More than that, you may want to check what your stereotypes are because even those are horribly questionable.
Wow! I thought conservatives were strict constitutionalists.
Indeed, many are.
What you seem to fail to understand is that strict constitutionalists, or more strict constructionists, does not necessarily mean that you believe everything and anything in the constitution is perfect or unneeding of change. That is ridiculous to suggest, as the constitution itself within it HAS a decided example of it BEING changed. To suggest that strict cosntitutionalist means what you are suggesting, that a conservative must agree with EVERYTHING in the constitution at all times forever and ever, then one must believe essentially that we are living in a Pardox as conservatives must believe that something which in and of itself over turns itself (with regards to prohibition) is never needing of over turning while simultaneously must be in favor of amendments overturning things if they're to be in favor of the constitution.
Your position makes no logical sense.
What is MORE logical is the belief that the Constitution is a solid document that is not easily transmutable. That there aren't secret rights hidden within it unseen, or that it should be combined with European law to form new opinions of what it means. That, while it is possible for portions of the constitution to potentially be outdated or unneeded, if something is truly worthy of being added or removed there is a process to do it. A process which is difficult to match the difficulty of doing the opposite action, to assure that things are done due to true need rather than simply political positioning or temporary political fads.
Which is what is being talked about here, FOLLOWING the constitution to amend it, which the constitution accounts to allow.
It seems that many believe that the constitution, as written, is almost divinely inspired, if not written by God himself.
Yes, many people find the constitution extremely inspired...be it divinely or by extremely enlightened and intelligent/wise individuals whose forethought was rooted in the desire for the longevity of the country they were creating rather than instant gratification that often came later.
This does not mean that there can not be portions of the constitution that over time need to be changed. Indeed, if one is truly going to be respectful of the insight that the founders placed within the Constitution, one must recognize that they themselves realized that errors could be potential made or things could change and thus built into the constitution a way in which to rectify those things. As already stated, you seem to believe that conservatives MUST think the constitution is infallable, which is illogical to suggest because it would in and of itself create a parodox as there is a clear and present situation similar to this already IN the constitution where a decision was essentially deemed a mistake and the public outcry to rectify it was strong enough.
It seems every time we have a new nominee to the SCOTUS, we have to deal with whether the nominee is a strict Constitutionalist or an activist.
Perhaps then you should actually pay attention to those discussions as you are severely lacking knowledge of what a Strict Constructionist is.
We consistently hear about the damn liberals that advocate a contemporary review/interpretation of our founder's intent as blasphemous as re-writting the Bible
Yes, but you seem to be either unknowing of the actual full argument or just dishonestly leaving it out. They dislike contemporary review/interpretation being done by members of the court who simply think, THEMSELVES, that an aspect of the constitution is wrong or outdated and thus based on things OTHER than the constitution such as their own beliefs, international law, and other such things they decide to alter, ignore, or change what the constitution essentially says or exist things that it supposedly "Says" out of thin air.
Indeed, the notion of "strict-constructionist" and "Activist" is rather pointless to this discussion, as they're talking about the role of JUDGES with regards to the constitution. Namely, rather the judge should read the constitution plainly and staticly, not changing what things mean to suit the "times" and whatever the public currently feels, and judge based on that or that a judge should use the constitution as a malleable base line that can be manipulated and re-interprited to fit the current societal norms and desires allowing for the creation of unspoken rights or the obsoletion/limitation of stated ones.
In this case we are speaking about there IS no issue of judges determining the constitution or constitutionality. Rather its people wanting to FOLLOW the constitution and its process to properly amend it as is dictated BY the cosntitution.
(bad example, some conservative goof is already on this
Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia).
Awww, how cute. You link to an idiotic site that's open to be edited by numerous people who had numerous previous editors come out and state htey were liberals who were purposefully putting forth parodies, and is barely known let alone referenced by the vast majority of conservatives in the U.S.
Anyway, the strict constitutionalists generally believe the Constitution is beyond reproach*.
No, they believe the constitution is a static document that can not have the meaning of its words change over time simply due to changing societal views by anything less than constitutional amendment.
For example, if "hate speech" became such a heated issue in our society that laws were passed banning any form of such speech from occuring and that law was challenged a strict constructionist would likely strike it down because even though society has changed in such a way that it seems a societal norm to denegrate and disallow such speech as being "harmful to society" or "infringing upon their rights", in reality it can affect directly nothing but ones feelings which isn't cause for actual harm and simply because a bunch of people in society dislike it doesn't mean the meaning of free speech can be changed or limited.
However....
If people got together and managed to push for an amendment that disallowed "hate speech" then, while they may or may not support the amendment happening, they could not legitimately argue it as an activist creation as they are following the constitutional means and process for how to do such a thing.
BTW - nothing is a bigger waste of time, expense and energy than amending the Constitution (even talking about it is silly). We couldn't get the ERA done in the 70's in a much more co-operative political environment. If you don't like the Constitution says, I suggest you just deal with it.
Let me use your reasoning.
Why do you hate the constitution, since you are condemning those that seek to follow the procedures it lays out?
