It's like a trainwreck; I want to turn away, but I can't.

Things I think about after a night of being forced to watch FOXNEWS for nine...straight...hours.

And this should be #1 in a series, for alas, my new job requires monitoring FOXNEWS for nine....straight....hours.

Okay.

First of all, let us consider that the population of the ENTIRE United States in 1780was a bit over 3 million people. The economy was agricultural. The food you got was the food you could take from the environment, so every family had a gun and it was the prized possession. The gun was necessary for food gathering and survival. The people who came to this continent originally were fleeing all sorts of religious intolerance. And the revolution itself was because the citizens of the colonies were tired of being used as a cash-cow by the English government.

That being said, you must realize that the Constitution was written with all of those things in mind, by gentlemen farmers who were, for the most part, flying blind. Creating a country out of whole cloth had never been done before.

So, it would seem that the Constitution is a great document to find the starting point; but I cannot actually see how you can apply the rules SPECIFICALLY to our day and age. The founding fathers NEVER EVER would have imagined guns that fire hundreds of rounds a second, a cannonball that can wipe out an entire country, or a land that spread from sea to sea.

The rules set down by the Constitution are good ones.
But they cannot be black and white.

Along those same lines: A Supreme Court judge interprets the Constitution; why not allow them to have sympathy and empathy and see beyond what was written over two hundred years ago by men whose laws WERE in FACT pliable?

It reminds me of a story from the court in Williamsburg, VA. It seems one neighbor had accused another neighbor of stealing a mule. A court was convened, and since the arguing parties were both farmers, the jury was all farmers from around the area. Both stories were heard by the court, and the jury deliberated.

The verdict? Not guilty, but he must return the mule.

Pliable.

The case of Same-Sex marriages in Iowa. Apparently, Huckabee doesn't like them, and apparently (though unmentioned) finds them offensive in the eyes of God. He asks that the voters of Iowa be free to vote upon the matter.

The court states: The Iowa Constitution states that all rights must be given equally to all Iowans. To do otherwise would be discrimination.

Huckabee's answer? Change the Constitution.

You'd think that a better answer would be "live and let live." Simply for the reason that, to paraphrase the well-known philosopher Joshua Ben-Joseph, "Love is Love."

Similarly: If a woman wants to stand before the world in an evening gown and answer a question honestly by saying she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, people who oppose her viewpoint should be defending her right to say it, even if they disagree, and vice versa.

Because that's what the founding fathers wanted, too.