Accepting the Limits of the Sacred

ANTONIN SCALIA considered evolution a guess, a very bad one, and believed that since the constitution doesn't mention gay marriage, neither should we. He enver said whether he considered the second amendment to apply to any arms other than muzzle loading muskets, bows, arrows, and knives; probably not, since he was an "originalist". To Scalia, the constitution and the Holy Bible were sacred, God given, above and beyond modern interpretation. It is one thing to believe such things, quite another to never question them, thus to never improve them. However wonderful and brilliant Scalia may have been, he succumbed to uncritical, dogmatic thinking, unwilling to question his fondest convictions. He stands as a perfect example of why the United States needs a new constitution; so we won't be held hostage to what we think people thought and meant by their words two hundred years ago. Our conservative colleagues are already insisting that Obama won't be president long enough to nominate a replacement, and vowing that no matter who he nominates, the person will be rejected. So it goes for people who claim to strictly interpret the constitution. That would mean that this year's supreme court session will carry on with eight justices. Our conservative colleagues, we can rest assured, are above petty politics, and place the nation's business above their personal preferences. Is it unreasonable to assert that the constitution and the law are neither liberal nor conservative, or shouldn't be? Evidently. The constitution is dead, as justice Scalia maintained. Words are inherently imprecise; all reading is interpretation. Aren't words therefore immortal? Scalia said that original intent is everything, the only thing. So how could he possibly argue that modern Americans have the right to bear arms that weren't even in existence in 1787? Perhaps he believed that an AK47 is the same thing as a muzzle loading musket. Since he is more liberal than conservative, Obama will likely nominate someone who is not very conservative, a liberal he hopes will not be too liberal for congressional approval. That's what its come to, what we've come to. You can look at the career of any supreme court justice, and and categorize him or her politically, although they often surprsie us. If we had a new, more relevant constitution, we could address AK47s, gay marriage, abortion, and a whole host of other contemporary issues, thus cutting back on all this liberal-conservative nonsense. The constitution is not sacred. Nothing on paper is. All documents can be improved; if only we could accept that fact.