Yes. I think the author is exactly wrong. The problem is not that we are too bound to the Constitution; it's that we allow violations of it at all. Constitution

Yes. I think the author is exactly wrong. The problem is not that we are too bound to the Constitution; it's that we allow violations of it at all. Constitutional violations like warrentless wiretapping should get an entire administration ousted overnight. If the Constitution is wrong in some areas, amend it. If you can't get enough people to agree that it's wrong, well, it sucks to be on the losing side of a vote, but democracy doesn't mean everyone always gets their way. It's supposed to be hard to change the fundamental laws of a land, because we want to be able to rely on them. Gridlock is another word for stability. >> Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation. We should, yes. We should follow them whether they were in the Constitution or not. We also should refrain from stealing and murder. But I, for one, want consequences for those who don't.