It is part two…
It is part two with which I disagree—that the Bush Candidate’s legal interpretations accurately represent the Constitution.
The text of the Constitution wasn’t written in fire or set in stone; it can always be changed. Supposing it were changed, so that the Bush candidates’ legal interpretations did accurately represent the Constitution; would it then be O.K. for them to militate against “world peace, … the health and safety of citizens, and … equal social, legal, and economic rights to all”?
Anticopyright.