Constitution, Living flexible document, Original intent

The last couple weeks of '24' there has been a lot of discussion on the Constitution of the USA and how the assertive interrogation of terrorists violates such and how the listening in on citizens who call terrorist supporting organizations, violates the Constitution. This intrigues me since terrorists overseas being called are not citizens of the USA and our Constitution does not address their protections per se. The same with questioning enemy combatants who are not apparently acting on behalf of any country who are significantly implicated (shooting at civilians or Iraqi security forces or planting roadside bombs and such) in having some terror network information.

The thought I had as one who leans more in the direction of words having meaning and the authors' intent being important, is that it strikes me that the ones who are crying the loudest about the Constitution's literal application to non citizen terrorists groups being phoned or when a terrorist without a country is caught on a battlefield or in plotting the destruction of aircraft or citizen traveled domestic bridges for instance, and such a one is interrogated, these are the very ones who are more 'flexible' read wishy washy about the Constitutional intent generally. It means nothing for citizens, it means everything for terrorists and their USA citizen friends. This is a Marxist replacement of the alleged oppressed class which can do no wrong.

These 'flexible document types' on the Constitution have all kinds of definitional work-arounds in contexts related to the framers' worldview and understanding of what constitutes a marriage and common law, or framer understanding of the right to life of developing children, and the framers' understanding and intent related to the the establishment clause. Obviously this clause is not to prevent religions and churches and other faiths from lobbying and affecting public discourse and otherwise influencing government but rather to keep government from working to establishing a particular religion or sect as the official State sect or religion or faith.

Sadly these Constitutional 'living flexible document' types bemoaning the treatment of non citizen terrorists without a country are clearly lobbying for the Constitution's establishment clause being applied to teach that our government (that recognized rights coming from God and not the king or other heirarchies) should be establishing (choose your favorite expression) secularism, secular humanism, or atheism. I would say it is trying to establish agnosticism but to do so one must say they "do not know about God" and doing this mentions "God" and like the teaching of even intelligent design apparently even the mention of deity or some intelligence that is transcendent to human intelligence is anathama, disallowed, out of order... to the new living and flexible constitutionalists who care so strongly about the constitutional rights of terrorists.

OK, I think the last two episodes of '24' (other than the viability of suitcase nukes finally getting network mention) are very stupid in the continued banter of Jack and his brother and his father all taking turns deceiving and holding each other at gun point and torturing each other. Talk about dysfuctional families! But the conversation about the Constitution is important and sadly no characters in '24' are getting it anywhere near correctly.