In the past few years there has been increasing interest in making amendments to the US Constitution, as well as growing interest in the way the document is interpreted. Whether someone is a strict constructionist or views the Constitution as a living document has become a partisan issue. This issue has become even more prevalent as the Bush administration has had trouble getting Senate approval of judicial appointments.
Judicial activism has become the new dirty word. Republicans support conservative judges who will "strictly" interpret the constitution, while charging that liberal activist judges are legislating from the bench. I am not denying that some judges have overstepped their bounds, but lets call a spade a spade. We all know that the extreme Right, the neo-conservatives, intent to appoint judges that support overturning Roe v. Wade. I do not support abortion for the sake of abortion, but it is the law. It should be the law until the legislative branch changes the law.
So should they change it with a constitutional amendment. I say no. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are intended to give freedoms, not take them away. It has never worked out very well for the Constitution to take away liberties whether in fact or interpretation, e.g. slavery, women/black vote, prohibition.
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and an Anti-Abortion Act should not be amended to the Constitution. Making laws is one thing, but making the mistake again of using the constitution to restrict freedoms is setting a bad precedent for future amendments.
Hey, if you disagree.....prove it. I'm open....kind of!