Cal can't have it both ways

In his column of April 14th, Cal Thomas once again buried his head in the sand. His theme was the conservative mantra that judges should interpret the Constitution in light of what the Founding Fathers intended.To interpret is to "explain or tell the meaning of." Can the most lucid oracle in 2010 make clear what the founding fathers meant in 1789? Further, if they could, much would be in conflict with modern society as the Founding Fathers could not have imagined what the 21st Century would entail.It should be argued that the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of the modern world. It is either a living, thus evolving, document or it is an archaic reminder of what no longer is.The most blatant example is the area of human rights. Our Founding Fathers clearly condoned slavery in the Constitution of 1789. This was stricken by the 13th Amendment. The 14th amendment assured "equal protection" to all American citizens. However, a conservative Supreme Court interpreted this to accommodate separate as being equal in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson). This was not reinterpreted until 1954 to clearly consider separate as being unequal.Mr. Thomas acknowledges that the courts should interpret the meaning of the Constitution. He does not want the courts to make law. Where is his dividing line between interpreting and making law? It appears to be drawn by his agreement or disagreement with a particular decision. He has the right to his opinion and the freedom to express it. He should not disparage others who do not hold views similar to his. His right to wish for bygone eras that will never exist again is the same as his right to be wrong in his views.Royce M. Blackwell Elgin