[John Cole]

M,

I'd say my own political and social views are driven as well by the rights of the individual, but, I suppose, that makes me a liberal, even though I'd hardly claim that classification.

I'm also a deconstructionist, so when I read, I look for instances of what the words don't reveal, what's hidden, and gaps and fissures in the text. Much modern philosophy and literary theory addresses the inscrutability of various kinds of texts, and the Constitution is a text like any other. In other words, we begin from the stance that language is not a representation of ideas in an always understandable, direct form. (Stanley Fish is an interesting theorist to read about these matters since he is both a leading literary theorist and a lawyer.)

If I'm not mistaken, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" had their origin in constitutional interpretation to begin with. Quite frankly, I need to know much more about the Constitution, too, but I believe it can be read in any number of ways, and all may be equally valid--or equally invalid. Of course, this makes the interpretation challenging.

I don't know if we need more or less government, but I have trouble believing a party that preaches less government while finding new and improved ways to curtail access to information. Emerson said that when people tell him how honest they are, he counts his spoons. When a party preaches less government, I expect more.

Sorry for the ramble, but I was addressing--or trying to--a few of your points.

John