When the 112th House of Representatives opened this past January with a reading of the United States Constitution, the intended political message was clear—the Republican Party was back to rescue the Constitution.

Less clear was what Constitution Republicans were vowing to save. The version they ordered read was, in fact, stripped of language the leadership considered “superseded by amendment,” even though those measures are still in the text. Some are embarrassing. The provisions protecting slavery, for example, call into question the infallibility of the Founding Fathers. Since one of the standard conservative talking points is that the “original intent” of the framers is an infallible guide to wisdom, the fallible parts were better left unmentioned.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson has ruled that a provision of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Unlike the previous ruling, however, Vinson held that the individual mandate could not be "severed" from the rest of the ACA and therefore ruled that the entire act was unconstitutional. This ruling, in other words, raises the stakes.

Apparently, you're not a "real" conservative unless you want to amend the Constitution in order to settle scores with your political enemies:

Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota, said he was there to deliver bad news. "Washington, D.C., remains in substantial part enemy-occupied territory for those who favor any serious meaningful, permanent reforms that would effectively limit national government," he said.

He thinks the federal government has so stretched its constitutional limits that the only way to snap it back into shape is with a constitutional convention called by the states.

To follow up on Gabriel's post below, White House adviser Valerie Jarret has claimed that the Obama administration's decision to defend the constitutionality of DADT is something the Department of Justice is "required" to do.

Lawrence M. Friedman examines how people approve of an evolving Constitution mainly when it evolves in the direction they want it to go.

Everybody knows the Supreme Court is powerful and important, but why should it be? The nine justices on the Court are not elected to their positions, are not accountable to the public, and can keep on serving and making decisions long after the president who appointed them has retired. What explains the role of the Court in our society, and what justifies its power?