[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM,
Here is one problem with what you are saying. People will interpret the bill of rights and the constitution differently. Look at gun control, even though it says in the constitution every American as the right to bear arms, many gun control advocates say that is outdated....

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I suggested that in such areas of debate, merely knowing the exact wording should suffice. How many legislators, I wonder, actually know what is in the Bill of Rights--never mind being able to interpret it in a reasonable fashion?

A doctoer must know human anatomy, as it is the basis of mordern medical science. A mathematician must know the rules of arithmetic. Even a personal fitness trainer must pass certain tests to be certified. Why the heck shouldn't legislators, who are going to make laws, be required to know what is in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which form the very basis of our legal system?

Again, in areas where interpretations may vary, merely knowing the text should be enough. But it is a frightening thought that some of our lawmakers probably don't even know that much. How then are they going to make laws that are legal? And why do you suppose there probably exist so many laws which aren't constitutional?