Given that we're about to celebrate our Country's birthday, it's fitting to note that a great number of Democrats, in fact half of Obama's supporters, don't support the Constitution "as-is". 

So often conservatives get laughed at when we suggest that Democrats/liberals want to change the Constitution.  Well, now Rasmussen has polling evidence to back up that belief.

Democrats favor minor revisions to the Constitution far more than Republican voters—51% of Barack Obama’s party say that either minor (41%) or major (10%) changes are needed. Just 23% of Republicans see the need for even minor changes. Overall, 76% of Republicans say the document is fine as is. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats agree.

So when we talk about liberal activist judges, re-writing the Constitution from the bench - and the Democrats who support them - now you know where we're coming from.  In other words, liberal judicial activism is more likely to result in changes to how the Constitution is applied by virtue of the fact that most liberals/Democrats support such changes to begin with.

How is it that prayer in schools constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?

It is incorrect to say that religion is playing a greater role in politics, but rather that religious Americans are becoming more likely to base their electoral choices on their values.  This is probably the result of more education and information as well as that they increasingly feel that fundamental issues are under attack, such as marriage, the Ten Commandments, abortion, prayer in schools, etc..  They are becoming more aware of political differences between candidates and political parties and are beginning to align their views with their electoral choices.

How have we let the immigration problem get to a point in this country where we have foreigners entering our country illegally, then holding mass rallies demanding their “rights”?  Or that we change our laws to accommodate them.

When did “undocumented workers” become “guest workers” or just “immigrants”?  And when did illegal immigrants become “undocumented workers”?  For that matter, when did “illegal aliens” become “illegal immigrants”?  When did the nomenclature of this debate change?  And who sent out the memo?

We’re lulling ourselves to sleep with language that attempts to gloss over our problems or make them appear more fuzzy and less clear-cut.  Sort of like the pro-abortion crowd refusing to call an unborn baby anything other than a fetus.

People who complain about political parties as being too extreme or not representative enough are those least likely to either have been and/or get involved in politics, thus becoming prophets.

American consumers have benefited from one de-regulation after another, such as telephone service, airlines and banking.  In light of no evidence to suggest otherwise, what logic do opponents of choice in education rely on to support their claims that de-regulation – or at least de-monopolization – of public education would prove less beneficial?

One thought to consider is that the very laws being proclaimed by activist judges as not specific enough as to what defines a marriage (or married couple) lack such specificity primarily due to the fact that, when they were written, everyone was quite sure they knew what a marriage was.

Note that we’re not having this debate over the legal definition of marriage as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist state judges in a few states.  And the potential impact of those actions on the rest of us by way of the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.

The ultimate strategy is to use the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter.  They intentionally use sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy.

For those who are curious, or happen to be members of Congress, the definition of “amnesty” is: n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people).  Not that facts should matter to members of Congress.

With the recent retirements from the US Supreme Court much has been made of the importance of maintaining a “balance” on the bench, largely by those who feel that their particular philosophy will come up short if the existing balance is changed.  In other words liberals are concerned that a conservative George Bush would appoint conservatives to the bench.  Imagine, a democratically elected President having the gall to fulfill a campaign promise.  Horrors!

Why were there no liberal cries for maintaining balance on the Court when Bill Clinton replaced the conservative Byron White with the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg?  Why no liberal gnashing of teeth when FDR radically altered the makeup of the Court in the 1930’s?

It would seem that we need to completely set aside the false notion of “balance” on the Court entirely.  The idea that we somehow presently have an arithmetically and philosophically perfect ideological see-saw arrangement on the Court, with O’Connor as the fulcrum, is laughable in sense that it is just not true.  Further, there is no requirement that we have such an arrangement anyway even if it were possible.  And what is the underlying suggestion of such a notion?  That we’ve achieved a state of constitutional nirvana and that no particular judicial philosophy should be advanced at the expense of the status quo?

Those who make that argument fall into the trap of admitting that their paramount concerns are ideology and outcomes as opposed to process or the impartial application of the Constitution.  Harry Reid himself has admitted the importance he places on results and his disagreements with the results of a more conservative judicial philosophy.  What happened to the cries of “no litmus tests”?

Given that much of liberalism’s policy victories in our country have come via the judiciary, it is not surprising to find that the liberal judges who’ve provided those victories are less likely to adhere to an originalist philosophy.  What we have today, and what the liberals want to maintain, is outcome based adjudication.

Look also at the example of liberal angst at the possible breakup of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Ninth covers forty percent of the land mass of the lower forty-eight and over twenty percent of our population.  It is the most backlogged court in the country, handling an average of six-thousand more cases per year than the other circuit courts.  How can such a court be counted on to provide timely access to the judicial process?

For liberals the issue is not efficiency, but ideology.  The Ninth Circuit is consistently the most liberal “outcome based” court in America (this being the “anti-Pledge of Allegiance” court) and liberals don’t want to upset the “balance” of a court that brings home the ideological bacon.  Balance has become a euphemism for maintaining the status quo of liberal dominance.

Liberals have further argued that it is the role of a Supreme Court nominee to somehow perform the function of uniting the country.  Nonsense.  The role of a Supreme Court Justice is clear, or should be, but it is oftentimes forgotten by those who serve on its bench.

What conservatives want is not results driven by ideology as a guiding factor, but rather the results gained from an original interpretation and application of the intentions of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.  What we need are judges who will exercise judicial restraint and leave policy and politics to the two elected branches of our government.  In other words conservatives prefer the rule of law, not of men – or an unelected judicial oligarchy.

The United States is a country with a federal democratic-republican form of government and with an extremely open political system.  Politics itself is a process of people agreeing and disagreeing or important subjects.  We have two major political parties precisely because great numbers of Americans DO disagree over a great many things.  And these differences are to be settled within a political arena created by our Constitution – not by unelected judges.

Such an attitude is not a judicial philosophy as such, but rather an acknowledgement of the reality of what our Constitution was intended to provide.  Anything which veers from that basic premise – whether left or right – could rightfully be termed as an “activist” philosophy, which is usually in pursuit of specific outcomes.  Given that, how can the notion of balance even be an issue?