Reply #6: Partly true.

[Igel]

Many liberals that I've known have revered the Constitution, with the understanding that it is a "living" document. Changes can more profitably and easily come by reinterpreting and reframing its provisions rather than seeking amendments.

Many conservatives I've known have revered the Constitution, with the understanding that it is a piece of paper, a dead and not a living document so that the content of that piece of paper is remarkably unchanging. (Not entirely unchanging, and there are quibbles over exactly how non-changing it is.) At the same time, the primary way of changing the document is through amendments.

I think we pretty much think "conservatively" when it's our employer redefining and re-interpreting the terms of our employment contracts, when our insurance company decides that our contract with them is a "living document." We're all fairly liberal in redefining things ourselves when it helps us.

On a slightly different note, I usually object to a person outside a group defining, on the basis of his/her own beliefs and perceptions, what members of a group believes. I mean, I've seen non-Muslims state what Muslims "really believe," whites declare what blacks "really mean and believe," and so on and so forth, and seldom have I felt in the least inclined to accept their rantings. There's a veritable garden of fallacies down that path.