In rejecting the need for veneration of the Constitution,  and encouraging a careless populism hostile to it, Mr. Levinson takes direct aim at James Madison’s claim, in Federalist49, that “as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.” Mr. Levinson would be well advised to take a page from the Tea Party book: be a critic of political dysfunction, but a friend of wise, free, and stable constitutional government.

I think these two articles clearly illustrate the great divide today, between people who want to change incrementally based on long-established and well-tested principles and those who want to chuck everything out and fundamentally alter the nature of this country. And guess which ones get called radical? Right, those of us who carry copies of the Constitution tucked under our arms.