“The Constitution is like my old blue dress ... it doesn't fit anymore.”

Spoken like a true militant socialist promoting atheism as the national establishment of religion.

Should be placed under the heading "Quotes from the enemies of Freedom and Liberty".

She should be deported to wherever her ancestors came from. Doesn't fit anymore, eh? We can fix that, but we can't fix stupid. Is she still in office even?

The archetype of all modern Democrats, and unfortunately many Republicans.

As is all to typical for this site, this is not the real quote. As near as I can find, here is the quote, from April 19, 1997: "The Constitution was never meant to be the only set of laws that we follow. I had a blue dress when I was five, but I can't wear it because it doesn't fit me anymore. There are lots of things that change over time and you have a whole bunch of legislation enacted every day, every month, every year that adjusts and calibrates to the times and to the issues...what is perceived to be the best thing for the American people...and these are called laws, and, you know, I think they've been doing a pretty good job." Clearly a case of perverting her words. She spoke of the dress not fitting, and how our constitution is implemented via laws which are undergoing constant change. If anyone should be "deported" it is the unAmerican who want to pervert our Constitution with hate filled amendments or believe that we should all be living in the 1700s still. So, for the quote as it really was spoken, not as others have perverted it!

As a California resident, this quote wether true or not, shows the disrespect of the laws our founding fathers started with. I see nothing wrong with these laws. No I don't fit in my first pair of jeans, I have grown into a larger size, but the brand is the same. California is a beautiful state, but our leaders have become very liberal, I think mostly because of Hollywood. Everything is O.K. here, I myself have a problem with the ongoing liberalism, to me it's the starting of communism, which we all know dosn't work. I am a flag waving American, and I don't think it would hurt a bit to go back to the laws the way they were addopted in the 1700's

thanks AfromR, the whole story and different views are always better. & The Constitution was never ment to be a set of laws. Ignorance of what law 'IS', is a huge part of the problem.

I would like to ask you Mike. If the Constitution was not ment to be a set of laws, then why would antone bother to write them down????? I call this Ignorance at it's higest level. Our founding fathers in other words just had nothing else to do so they gathered together, and wrote the Constitution, for our entertainment, and to just say it's a nice thing if you can make it work. "I DON'T THINK SO".

Jim, its good that you're from the left cost, that explains a lot and why you don't know what 'law' is. You probably attended public school. Very briefly; A Republic's Constitution is an outline (not law), defining governmental structure and the limited scope to which laws may be passed. The U.S. Constitution was the first instrument that I'm aware of, that was based on the individual being sovereign and their servant representatives being unable to pass any law that would constitute compelled compliance. De jure law defines the God of Natures set relationship between act and actor. The further away from 'law' man's rules get, the greater the chaos, tyranny, and oppression. God said: "thou shalt not kill'; man accepted that as 1st degree, man slaughter, etc. Law is then the absolute enforceable intangible rule as stated and accepted by the sovereign (common law) or his representative (statutory). If the rule does not fall within, or is contrary to, the scope of Constitutional authority, it is void ab initio. The current de facto rule makers have of course ignored Constitutional limits (the state being superior to the individual, statute superceding common law). The U.S. is no longer a government of law, but rather a democratic oligarchy, cranking out unlawful de facto rules.

Reston's elaboration doesn't change the context of the quote much -- both get thumbs down from me.

Jim, party before country, eh?! No different from neocons..

Would be the worst quote ever, taken out of context as this evidently was. Thanks, Reston. If it doesn't fit, amend it, as has been necessary at timrd to extend people's rights. Sounds like something George W.Bush would say when it gets in his way, only he doesn't bother amending it ..he just ignores it.

Thanks Reston. Your clarification really reveals just how much of an idiot Ellen Tauscher really is.