The resistance on the left to merely reading the Constitution is really quite striking. It's the most clear admission there could be that they know their programs are contrary to it. It lays out a scheme for limited government that has been evaded by creative progressives with sophistry and blather, because the left couldn't get its agenda through the amendment process. Maybe they don't want us to be reminded that it provides for amendments other than by Supreme Court edict. Today, however, we're clever enough to couch every issue in terms of some kind of discrimination or denial of rights, even when overruling laws passed through the political process result in increasing the power of the federal government, particularly the courts. The Justices have been rather dim in recognizing that by increasing their own power, they've moved contrary to the whole purpose of the Constitution. It would be anathema to the NYTimes for them they to understand that.

I just noticed that the Times' headline is "The United States Consti ...tion." What was the point of that? I suppose it was meant to remind us that the Constitution wasn't perfect and has been amended, but as I note above, the original document provides for that, and my first reaction was that they were suggesting that the word was really "Constipation." Whether intended or not, that term has more to do with the Gray Lady's rigid and crabby reaction to the 2010 elections.

UPDATE: Similar thoughts from Powerline.