The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.
President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a 'set of suggestions.'
There's a misconception about Barack Obama as a former constitutional law professor. First of all, there are plenty of professors who are 'legal relativists.' They tend to view legal principles as relative to whatever they're trying to achieve.
We know that this man has a proven record of being a 'strict constructionist.' Our President has given us his word that he will interpret the Constitution rather than make new laws from the bench.
I am sworn to uphold the Constitution as Andy Johnson understands it and interprets it.
If there's anything you absolutely hate, why, it must be unconstitutional. Or, if there's anything you absolutely have to have, it must be required by the Constitution. That's where we are. That is utterly mindless.
I find it extremely ironic that Bush says that personal opinion should not be a tool in the interpretation of the Constitution, when he's the one who's lobbying for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If that doesn't stem from personal opinion, I don't know what does.
What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn't matter.