[Prost1]

Dr. George Will has it all wrong. He has been away from his academic studies too long...

The founding fathers wrote a simple document, the Constitution. It would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. The 1st 6 Rights were not sufficient to win approval. The founders had to add 4 more Rights (and reach the mystical number 10). The 10th Amendment was absolutely necessary for passage.

Having written this, one needs only add that what is or is not constitutional does not require a great legal mind. It requires someone who can read and be true to the document. It helps if someone has read the arguments for and against the document.

Great legal minds are needed only when one hopes the Court will find something in the Constitution nor originally there, ie; the Commerce Clause as the end all authority for Federal encroachment into education, environment, fuel standards, etc.

The founders provided for a solution to issues they could not possibly consider... the Amendment.

We do not need great minds, we need resolute individuals to tell Congress to stuff it or Amend it!

[Ramius]

The constitution was not written by constitutional scholars. :-)

[Jason_b]

best post of the day bump for Prostl.

So the lady's a neoconservative according to malkin.

Too bad. We need a paleoconservative.

[BohDaThone]

The founding fathers wrote a simple document, the Constitution. It would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. The 1st 6 Rights were not sufficient to win approval. The founders had to add 4 more Rights (and reach the mystical number 10). The 10th Amendment was absolutely necessary for passage.

There was nothing mystical about the 10 amendments in the "Bill of Rights"

Twelve were submitted to the states for ratification, and the first two were not ratified at the time. So, the "hyper-important First Amendment" was actually submitted as the Third!