Now that Miers is out of the picture, maybe we can now have a long overdue national debate. So why not start it here? I believe the Constitution should be applied precisely in the manner intended by those who wrote it, and understood in precisely the manner of those who ratified it. I do not believe the Constitution should be read through a prism of contemporary attitudes. I do not believe the Constitution is a living document. I believe that if one does believe these last two points, then that individual believes they are so much wiser (or perhaps just more important) than the Founders that they can therefore bypass, by judicial fiat, the amendment process the Founders wrote into the Constitution (a.k.a. judicial activism). So. Who disagrees? And why?