I have to admit that I’m always intrigued by people that proffer an idea, then are unable to defend the idea based on their own knowledge. They are simply repeating some mantra that has an emotional appeal to them. Such seems to be the case with Mr. Schweers’ letter stating that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document.

First, set aside Mr. Schweers’ assertion that I engaged in chastising anyone or expressed ire. I did neither. Second, I intentionally did not address what Messrs. Marshall, Lincoln or Roosevelt said because I was not interested in what they said. In fact, in the quotes, none of those gentlemen said that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. I was, and remain, interested in what Mr. Schweers believes it is that gives the Constitution “life.”

I did suggest several possibilities that Mr. Schweers might consider as the basis of the “life.” But those were simply questions of possibilities. And if they are not accurate, exactly what is it that Mr. Schweers believes is the form of constitutional “life?” There has to be one or it cannot be a “living, breathing” document.

Constitution Day will be upon us within the month. Perhaps Mr. Schweers can enlighten those of us he seems to believe are less informed so we can be as enlightened as he is.

So, once again, what is it, exactly, that makes the Constitution a “living, breathing” document? Does he know? Or, to paraphrase Mr. Schweers, is the idea simply “poppycock?”