Citizen
Active Member
- May 27, 2009
- 237
- 61
- 28
I beg to differ, because the Constitution was written to be understod by the average citizen, and is much easier to read than 99% of the legal doccuments written today.
Just in case you missed it, the constitution includes the very mechanism for chamge, and it is not through interpertation, but through the Amendment process, which is clearly spelled out in Article 5, so anytime it needs to be changed, it can be amendmended, as it has 27 times.
By the way, the Constitution is a written legal doccument, so what it ment when written, it means now, just as any other legal doccument can not change without be amendmend.
But amendments to the Constitution are nothing more than interpretation of the original and reclarification thereof. Since the country has bypassed the amendment process for lo these many years in favor of making law which may, or may not, be Constitutionally challenged, maybe the ONE amendment that is absolutely necessary is the one making it more simple to amend the Constitution. Today, it can take an entire morning just to dedicate a new postage stamp. To amend the Constitution again would take years.
The Amendment process was made difficult on purpose so that the Constitution would not be amendmented every time a new fad sprang up.
Sorry, but I forgot to mention that an Amendment is not, in any way, an interpertation of the Constitution, but an actual change in the written document itself.