Pedro de San Patricio
Gold Member
It's interesting to me how many people of one particular persuasion seem to favor the the latter over the former. The only people of that persuasion who didn't support it that come to mind claimed that any change to the Constitution at all is un-American if not entirely illegal on the grounds that it's the law of the land. Which school of thought do you associate with personally? Should we insist that any changes go through the amendment process, use activist judges to reinterpret inconvenient aspects of it to agree with current agenda, or refrain from ever touching it at all?