Which brings me to the newer conversation created by conservatives; Our constitutional rights and the founding document are symbolic, not actual laws. You say you’re a strict constructionist? Even constructionists are now pushing the symbolism angle, insisting the constitution doesn’t preclude the power of social mores. Are you listening Justice Thomas. Check out this “conflicted” constitutional constructionist justifying his paranoia, fear and bigotry.
Under what I would categorize as the “big BUT theory,” along with channeling the spirits of the founding fathers, Miller steps out onto the ledge, and jumps:
J Karl Miller: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… " reads the First Amendment to the Constitution. Are those provisions inviolate and set in stone, or may they be abridged judiciously in those rare instances where good judgment and restraint must trump literal interpretation? "Is it not time for judicial restraint to enable judgment and common sense to prevail?"
While an inalienable right to perform an act may exist, the propriety may be open to question—is it appropriate to do so? …condemning as bigots or racists those opposed to the mosque is no different than denouncing its proponents as endorsing terrorism. The solution will require the wisdom of a Solomon and a dollop of adult cooperation—in the end, possessing the right to do something does not render it right to do so.
Finally, I am not a believer in a "living Constitution"; instead, I am a strict constructionist. Nevertheless, the framers did not intend the Constitution as a vehicle for ignoring judgment, common sense, personal conduct and an accepted standard of mores to negotiate a path for its destruction.Assuming of course that it is an actual “path” to our destruction.