Cal Thomas is not happy about liberals and their belief in a judiciary and representative democracy and stuff:
To some on the left, though, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but is to be interpreted by judges and politicians. … The Constitution, according to liberal thinking, was written at a time when people -- including some of its signers -- owned slaves and so we moderns must interpret and regularly update it, like computer software.
Thomas says this like it's a bad thing. Does he seriously disagree that a document that allowed slaves (and counted them as three-fifths of a person) might need to be updated from time to time? No, of course not; he's just ranting about liberals for the sake of ranting about liberals. How can I be so sure? Because just three paragraphs later, Thomas writes:
It is a given that the courts interpret the Constitution for a modern age. The Founders could not have anticipated what the America of 2011 would look like. They set down certain principles that could guide us into the future.
So, basically, after blasting liberals for thinking "we moderns" and "judges" need to interpret the constitution and apply it to modern times, Thomas says courts need to interpret the constitution for a modern age. Never mind!
Thomas also rips into liberals for inconsistently citing the bible:
These "interpretationists" are like people who appeal to biblical authority when it appears to support their earthly agenda ("turn the other cheek" means unilateral disarmament; numerous verses about helping the poor mandates government welfare), but ignore it when it offends secular pursuits (abortion, homosexuality, income redistribution, capital punishment).
I've yet to encounter the person who "appeal[s] to biblical authority when it appears to support their earthly agenda" but doesn't ignore it when it's inconvenient. And I doubt very much that Thomas passes his own test of consistency. We know he frequently appeals to biblical authority -- does that mean he's on board with everything in the bible, including putting adulterers to death? Or is he guilty of hypocrisy in criticizing liberals for taking an a la carte approach to the bible?