There is concern that Buncombe County schools are teaching that the US Constitution is a living document. Thirty-some years ago, I went to public schools that taught the same. My civics teacher was an intelligent man, who had us reading works of, among others, John Locke, to give us understanding of the great thinking that went on before the French and American revolutions. He taught us all about personal rights and checks and balances of power. He also taught that the Constitution was intended to prevent too much power from accumulating in one place, but it was also designed so as not to be so brittle it would break with the unforeseen. It has the capacity to be amended, but the procedure for amending it is purposely tough enough to prevent revolutionary overhauls at a breakneck pace.

As with many issues, we are arguing over a question of degree, unsure exactly where to draw the line. (I just Googled into this guy, who agrees with me. I also found a libertarian blog wherein the author argued if he were to found a country from scratch, he would use the US Constitution as written as a foundation. I heartily agree, but I will not link to that blog because I disagreed with other premises.) My point is, the Constitution is good, the extra-Constitutional interpretations stretched by the Supreme Court Jesters are the problem. Local Constitutional scholar and personal hero Robert Levy has written extensively on the subject. See, for example, The Dirty Dozen.

Then again, there are so few people defending Constitutional principles, I should probably bite my tongue and celebrate anybody who loves the document from whatever angle. Therefore, consider this post only friendly debate. OK?

Pretty please?