perfidy

Johno has accused me of being a strict constructionist, and to an extent this is true. I am even somewhat of an originalist when it comes to matters constitutional. This does not mean that I think that there is no place for interpretation - the constitution is an awfully short document considering that it is the operating manual for a nation of almost 300 million people. The authors of the constitution could not have imagined every situation that would arise in the future, and they designed flexibility and even some careful ambiguity into their work.

This does not mean that the constitution is a "living document" subject to reinterpretation like Hamlet to every new generation. The constitution is not merely a text to be deconstructed, it is law, the law. When the constitution plainly states, for example, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" it means that the government cannot do anything not specifically granted the power to do in the constitution. In this and in other cases, I am a strict constructionist.