I don't think I've ever heard 'stereotypical politician' and 'waffler' offered as compliments. 

I meant the phrase ironically, because we have this stereotype that the best leaders are those who know what they want to do and do not waver.  In the current president, we have seen that trait too often turn into a stubborn refusal to listen to dissenting voices.  He has lacked the wisdom to question his own decisions in matters that seriously divide the nation.  Obama's strongest characteristic, IMO, is his sense of empathy.  He really does have the ability and willingness to understand conservative arguments, even those that he has strong disagreement with.  That is precisely why I think that he would make a good Supreme Court justice.  He has a judicial temperament.  By way of contrast, I don't see any of that ability in Clinton.  She is more like Bush in her willingness to see her enemies as just flat out wrong, rather than people who might have some valid points to consider.

Hey, I'm a strict constructionist but that doesn't mean I don't think the constitution is necessarily up to the task of dealing with the issues you mentioned.  But there is a difference between interpreting a text the way it was meant to be interpreted and twisting the meaning willy nilly to mean what you want it to mean when you want it to mean it and not some other time.

This is the same point that Obama makes in his book.  He is a constitutional scholar, so he is aware of the serious conundrums that anyone faces who tries to interpret that document.  It is very unambiguous and exact in some areas, e.g. the age you have to be in order to run for the presidency.  But it can be very vague in other areas, e.g. the extent to which the federal government can regulate the economy.  It isn't just the Constitution that can resist clear interpretation.  Laws are often written with ambiguity and vagueness built into the language precisely because it is needed to get the legislation passed.  The courts are then left with the problem of sorting out the language.

If you want to get the constitution to address the issues you reference, try changing the constitution.  It does have a mechanism built in for changing it ya know.

That option is available to all sides who disagree with court interpretations.  Clearly, the gun lobby is not going to ask for a Constitutional amendment to clarify gun ownership rights, because they would probably get the opposite of what they wished for.  Given a choice, most Americans would opt for tougher federal standards on gun safety and gun ownership.  Most people don't see private gun ownership as really playing much of a role in a militia, nor do they fear a standing federal army in the same way that those who originally supported the 2nd amendment did.  Similarly, anti-abortion groups are not going to ask for a Constitutional amendment that forbids abortions.  They would likely get one that establishes exactly the standard that Roe v Wade has--limited government regulation of the third trimester of a pregnancy.  So, instead of asking for amendments to clarify those issues, the right wing has taken the position that the original constitutional language has been misinterpreted by the courts.

If you think the mechanism is too stringent, well, hey, use the mechanism to weaken it.  That's how a society that respects the rule of law would behave.   Forcing the constitution to say things it does not say is not commendable.  It is a recipe for disaster.

Agreed.  What we probably disagree on is who is doing the forcing and what is being forced.

I challenge you to find a strict constructionist who does not believe that people have the right to amend the constitution if it seems warranted to handle issues such as speech and weapons in light of modern technology.

It isn't just "strict constructionists" who believe that.  Everyone does.  I also think that most strict constructionists would admit that our Constitution is a "living document" and that the language cannot be so strictly interpreted as to render laws obsolete.  For example, one could take the ridiculous position that "arms" referred only to 18th century weapons and don't apply to moder semi-automatics.  One could also say that we only have a right to be secure in our "papers" and that free speech only refers to spoken words.  So the question becomes one of how much wiggle room there should be, not whether there should be any wiggle room at all.  However, ideologues on both sides often gloss over that problem in order to promote a specific political agenda.  While the courts usually recognize that there are practical limits to how one can interpret legal language, they also see a limit to how literally one can interpret it.  Free speech applies to written words and words transmitted electronically.

When silly Christians and moralists wanted to remove alcohol from the country, they passed an amendment, which meant the ratification of people across the country across a plurality of states.  When the secularists wanted to insert a 'right to privacy' into the constitution they stacked the court with their peeps and redefined the constitution based on the conclusions of just nine men. 

It is interesting that no amendment was ever passed or repealed that banned cocaine use, but it was effectively prohibited in the early 20th century.  That ban was largely successful, although we have experienced a resurgence in more recent decades.  And what is this about "secularists" inserting a 'right to privacy'?  What does that right have to do with religion?  The first amendment establishment clause effectively makes us a secular nation, and it is the religious right who wants to reinterpret that language.  Recently, Huckabee has called for a Constitutional amendment to reverse our secularism, but that will never pass with most Americans.  And don't talk to me about stacking the court with one's "peeps".  There is a reason why the current Supreme Court has a majority of Catholics on it, and it is not just because Catholics make the best constitutional scholars or represent a majority demographic in this country.

When it was realized how stupid prohibition was, the masses mobilized to repeal the amendment.  What recourse do we have now?  You've got to A.  Elect the President of your Choice.  B.  Count on a SC justice to die or retire.  C.  Hope the President appoints 'your guy.'  D.  Hope congress approves the guy.  E.  Hope a court case relevant to the one you object to makes it to the court.  Hope the court rules in your favor.  This is effectively disenfranchisement, especially seeing as most people are unsatisfied with the options for President and furthermore, your vote for that president is washed out by voters in 50 other states, as opposed to the constitutional amendment process which, while still a formidable hurdle, allows you to win your own state.

Yes, well representative democracy can be messy, and it is true that each voter individually is something less than a drop in the bucket when it comes to national policies.  But that is by design, isn't it?  The idea is not to concentrate too much power in any one group of people.

Anyway, that was a bit of a ramble.  To your blog:  strict constructionists do not object to the constitution changing.  They just think you ought to use the prescribed mechanism to change it.

We are in perfect harmony on that point.  Where we differ is on which parts ought to be changed and how they ought to be changed.  Strict constructionists tend not to recommend such changes when they think that they can promote their narrow political agenda by changing the politics of judges who are appointed to office.  They are no different from anyone else in that respect.  They just like to use rhetoric that makes it sound as if theirs is the one and only interpretation possible--as if nobody who ratified, enforced, or interpreted the language might have a different opinion.