I was reading this Q & A with Justice Scalia - http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1 - and I thought of a question: for Republicans who claim the concept of freedom as their polestar, how does it square that your judicial champions believe that you are not only bound by a document that is (not including amendments) more than 250 years old, but that you are bound by what what the people who enacted it believed it to mean at that time?
Truthfully, it doesn't. I think this is a good reminder that the Republican platform implies an extreme nationalism that necessarily abridges the concept of "freedom" to conform to an us versus them dichotomy. Further, this dichotomy identifies as its major point of departure, i.e. the point at which the circle was drawn around "us," a period in history during which property-holding white christian males dominated society.
I mean, am I wrong?