We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[Sallow]

It's long overdue for a serious update. The Founders would have thought so as well. It was written on paper not carved in stone.

Hence the reason they gave us a process to amend it, but these days it's just easier for politicians to pass what ever laws they want, Constitutional or not, and make sure the president appoints judges who will go along with it and change the law by judicial fiat.

Very true.

 

[dcraelin]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

In other words, no, we don't need a new Constitution.
We just need an amendment that lists penalties for disobeying the provisions in the one we've got.
A few such penalties might include something like:
"If Congress or any state or local legislature passes a law that infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, each member of the legislature who voted to pass the law, shall be sentenced to a minimum of 6 months in prison; and the law shall immediately become null and void."
"If Congress passes a law asserting a power not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, each member of Congress who voted to pass it, shall lose his membership in Congress and be barred from holding any further public office; and the law shall immediately become null and void."
The details can be discussed further, I just rattled those two off the top of my head.
Keep in mind that most provisions in the Constitution, don't command the people to do anything. Instead, they command the government to do things (or to not do certain things).
But the idea definitely has some encouraging possibilities.
Presently, I believe the Constitution contains a provision saying that members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for things they do as part of their official duties.
Clearly this needs to change, and the amendment I suggested, would change it.

This Amendment should also give Juries the express power of deciding whether or not a law is or isn't constitutional, before even deciding the defendant's guilt. Any law that is decided to be unconstitutional in at least 4.5% of the cases (1 - two standard deviations) after 3 months of operation is to become null and void, but no action is to be taken against the Legislature; however, if more than 31.8% of the cases are determined to be unconstitutional after 3 months, the legislators who voted for the bill are to be removed from office and jailed for 12 months, all pensions removed and salaries must be paid back.

Jurys, as I understand it, have the power now to ignore the law, tho they arent often told so. Your proposal goes to far, and is too complicated.

Some anti-federalists at the time of ratification did object I believe at the lack of jury use in federal Judicial areas. perhaps that is something that could be looked at.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Y
The Constitution was not handed down by the flying spaghetti monster or any other deity. It is a document written by men who lived in another century. Life today does not depend upon slaves and horses. The FF were smart enough to realize that things change and made adequate provision for those changes. If you don't like the changes then work to pass an Amendment with your "strict constructionism" enshrined in it and see how far you get.

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

So freedom of speech, press, and religion are all bad/obsolete since they were written by white slave owners over 200 years ago?

That provision you speak of is called the Amendment process, and it was used to Amend the Constitution to force strict constructionism by the 10th Amendment.

Preamble Bill of Rights.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Clearly the Founders considered Strict Construcionism to be vital to prevent oppression.

Deal with it.

USMB Roll Call, SALUTE!

[MENTION=19543]Geaux4it[/MENTION] [MENTION=40803]House[/MENTION] [MENTION=27958]LadyGunSlinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION] [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION] [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION] [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION] [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION] [MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=11944]Mad Scientist[/MENTION] [MENTION=5035]GHook93[/MENTION] [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] [MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION] [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION] [MENTION=46110]pvsi[/MENTION] [MENTION=39750]Intolerant[/MENTION] [MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=24036]R.C. Christian[/MENTION] [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] [MENTION=42380]OriginalShroom[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] [MENTION=20545]Mr. H.[/MENTION] [MENTION=47870]Vigilante[/MENTION] [MENTION=13580]CaféAuLait[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=31153]HenryBHough[/MENTION] [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=11635]Kat[/MENTION]zndog [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=47812]CorvusRexus[/MENTION]ENTION=19543]Geaux4it[/MENTION] [MENTION=40803]House[/MENTION] [MENTION=27958]LadyGunSlinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION] [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION] [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION] [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION] [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION] [MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=11944]Mad Scientist[/MENTION] [MENTION=5035]GHook93[/MENTION] [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] [MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION] [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION] [MENTION=46110]pvsi[/MENTION] [MENTION=39750]Intolerant[/MENTION] [MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=24036]R.C. Christian[/MENTION] [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] [MENTION=42380]OriginalShroom[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] [MENTION=20545]Mr. H.[/MENTION] [MENTION=47870]Vigilante[/MENTION] [MENTION=13580]CaféAuLait[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=31153]HenryBHough[/MENTION] [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=11635]Kat[/MENTION]zndog [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=47812]CorvusRexus[/MENTION]

Too bad the FF never said what you are misreading into the term "misconstruction".

The term applies to the BoR since that is the context in which it is applied. It stipulates that the rights so enumerated should not be MISCONTSTRUED or to put it in more simple terms misinterpreted.

That means that your right to vote should never be abridged or thwarted by passing laws that impede your right to vote in any manner. But when that was written only white males over the age of 21 were allowed to vote.

According to YOUR "strict constructionist" misinterpretation of that term no one else should be allowed to vote. All subsequent amendments expanding voting rights are excluded because YOU believe that they are a MISCONSTRUCTION of the original intent of the FF.

Fortunately "strict constructionist" oppressors like YOU don't get to make that call.

We the People get to make that call and We the People have correctly interpreted that anyone, male or female, of any race who is a citizen and over the age of 18 is allowed to vote.

We the People get to decide on what is and isn't how the Constitution and the BoR should be construed. "Strict constructionist" oppressors like YOU are allowed to have your say but you don't get to dictate your beliefs to the rest of the nation. You are only one part of We the People and your misinterpretation is not the law of the land and never will be.

Now I am flattered that you felt so threatened by my exposing the weakness of your position that you needed to call in the RW cavalry. What is amusing is that none of them came to you aid. That says volumes.

 

[dblack]

You are conflating and confusing two entirely separate things!

The form of government is by majority rule but the Constitution protects the rights of individuals from being abridged by the majority.

We the People are not attempting to abridge the rights of the individual because no individual has the right to impose their oppressive beliefs on We the People.

Well, I'm not clear what you mean by this. You're defending changing the terms of the consent contract (the Constitution) via means other than the amendment process, and then implying that those objecting to that agenda are "oppressing" you. This sounds mighty Orwellian to me. Can you clarify? How are people who don't want government reneging on its commitments oppressing anyone?

That is not what I posted so I don't need to defend what I didn't post! Try reading it again and then get back to me!

I took your comments to be a defense of the "living document" rationale, and a rejection of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. My apologies if I misread you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Guns and Jury Trials go hand-in-hand. It's not a coincidence that they are both extolled upon in the Bill of Rights as being NECESSARY for the security of a FREE state, especially when the Preamble of the Bill of Rights clearly declares that those rights are intended to safeguard against a Tyrannical Federal Government. Notice they don't put that Preamble in the public school textbooks.

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything of the sort!

What does this mean to you?

prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers

It means that "strict constructionist" oppressors like YOU are trying to subvert the Constitution for your own partisan political purposes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Something is going to happen guys. It's a slow motion process we see unfolding before us. Many liberals are no longer my fellow countrymen - there are fewer and fewer things we see in common. Nothing binds me to them.

For instance, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how anyone could defend illegal immigration. Canada doesn't, Japan doesn't, Mexico doesn't. The whole point of setting up a country is to control the borders. Why have a nation if you don't have borders?

Liberals and Conservatives used to share far more common ground back in the 1900s-1960s. The 1960s lit the fuse and the divergence has been growing, slowly but steadily since them.

Granted, I'm probably a canary in the coal mine, one of the first to declare that I see very little common bond with liberals in America, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be that lonely in the coal mine in the coming years and decades. Just look at how society is fracturing. The rise of gated communities, the rise of racially segregated neighborhoods, the rise of politically safe districts because birds of a feather flock together.

When a people become so separated by two philosophies of how government and society should be constructed, it becomes a very difficult task to govern the people under one constitution.

I agree completely. The liberals have become so blind to the logical conclusion of their own ideology, that they really believe that tearing down the entire country, is their way of building it up.

They have become the typical rich spoiled brat, that doesn't realize how good he has it, and wants to destroy the very thing that makes him wealthy, because he himself never had to work for any of it.

People who never ran a business, saying we need to get rid of business owners.

People who never lived without power, saying we need to shut down CO2 emitting power plants.

People who never lived without plenty of food, saying we shouldn't spray crops or dust fields.

People who have never worked on a farm, complaining that 40 hour weeks is too much, and one week vacation is too little.

People who never lived without freedom, saying we need to do away with our freedoms.

People who have never lived, or even visited anywhere else in the world, saying everywhere else in the world is better than it is here.

I can't think of any aspect of liberalism that I can identify with. It's simply an entire ideology of Spoiled Brat Syndrome.

Ironically I used to be a leftard myself. Thank G-d I grew a brain, and got away from those people.

Oh the IRONY coming from the same poster who said this;

(try making an intelligent post for once, and maybe I won't just mock you?)

 

[Derideo_Te]

So now you've at least admitted that they teach Loose Constructionism as a viable alternative, +1.

Hint, it's not a viable alternative. Every clause in the Constitution means precisely what it says when it was written, unless it was changed or voided by amendment.

Also the books are written in a way that reflects negatively on strict constructionism, read any of them. The fact that the book even teaches "Loose Constructionism" as viable alternative is intellectually dishonest, and thus any book that teaches it is there for the purpose of ostracizing strict constructionism.

Please find which part of the Constitution says "The United States Government may exercise any power not prohibited to it." I know for sure that the Tenth Amendment reads OPPOSITE of that.

Your biased opinion doesn't alter the FACTS. You don't get to impose "strict constructionism" just as you don't get to impose "creation science" or any of your other absurd biases in public classrooms.

The Constitution was not handed down by the flying spaghetti monster or any other deity. It is a document written by men who lived in another century. Life today does not depend upon slaves and horses. The FF were smart enough to realize that things change and made adequate provision for those changes. If you don't like the changes then work to pass an Amendment with your "strict constructionism" enshrined in it and see how far you get.

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

I don't believe that the Constitution was written as a result of slavery or horse ownership. It was written as a result of some timeless truths and natural rights (I believe God-given). The founders of this nation had witnessed and experienced first hand what life under total tyranny was really like. They understood total oppression at the hands of a despotic monarch and they knew that what they (and their countrymen) were experiencing was wrong.

The founders were anything but oppressors. They were primarily Christians who opposed the Monarchy and "State Religion" of England. They saw a need for a break from England and they simply made their move. They fought, bled, and died so that they and their children and their grandchildren (and you and I) could worship God in their own way or not worship Him at all.

I believe that the right to assemble is timeless. I believe that the right to speak is timeless. I believe that the right to defend oneself against criminals and tyrants is timeless. I believe that a person's right to worship God in his own way is timeless. I believe that a person's right to privacy is timeless.

Don't you believe that your rights should be protected? An intact Constitution should be our first defense against someone who would attempt to strip us of those rights.

You and I are on the same page. What is timeless remains so. However there are those who are trying to impose a "strict constructionist" interpretation on We the People because their hold on power is slipping away.

 

[dcraelin]

I do not agree with the lyrics, but it is good music.

"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again"

The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - YouTube
.

They are stating a fact about politics and the mindlessness of the public. They are not advocating for it.

I dont think they're talking about "the mindlessness" of the public, but about the tendency of countries to fall prey to the interests of the rich and powerful, and so eventually decay and fall. That manipulators get ahead of movements for improvement and warp them to their will. That the people are fooled.

But I dont think thats an excuse not to try and improve things.

Jefferson said the governments of Europe had divided into wolves and sheep, that the rich preyed on the poor. We improved on those governments and can do so again.

 

[dblack]

You and I are on the same page. What is timeless remains so. However there are those who are trying to impose a "strict constructionist" interpretation on We the People because their hold on power is slipping away.

What do you mean by this? This is what I took as a defense of 'changing the terms of the contract'. What about a 'strict constructionist' interpretation imposes anything on anyone?

 

[kaz]

We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

Of course not.

The notion is ignorant idiocy.

That current Constitutional jurisprudence conflicts with your errant conservative dogma of hate and ignorance is no reason for a 'new constitution.'

I feel you, why would you want a new one when you've already contorted the one we have into what you wanted it to say? Why start over?

 

[kaz]

You and I are on the same page. What is timeless remains so. However there are those who are trying to impose a "strict constructionist" interpretation on We the People because their hold on power is slipping away.

The people ceded certain, enumerated powers to the Federal government. The people then gave us a way to change that over time, 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

If the Federal government is not "strict" in it's following of the powers that the people gave it, is that not the government granting itself new powers?

Who else can unilaterally change the terms of a contract? Why should that be allowed?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Our first Constitution was pretty liberal for its time and a new Constitution would be even more liberal. The nation's history is of slow liberalism, too fast for some and too slow for others, but always in the liberal direction.

I don't agree. I believe there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. In fact, there are lots of wrong ways.

When a baker creates the perfect cake there is no need to "liberally" change the recipe over time. The perfect cake will ALWAYS be the perfect cake.

In 4016 B.C. a person had the right to defend himself and his family from a violent criminal. The same will be true of a person living in 2036 A.D.

In 2036 B.C. a person had the right to express his beliefs verbally. The same will be true of a person living in 2021 A.D.

There's an old saying that's simple but true: "if it works ... don't fix it." Who here truly believes that they can improve upon the basic tenets of the Constitution of the USA?

In 4016 B.C. a person had the right to own slaves. That slave would consider his owner to be a violent criminal. Would that slave have the right to defend himself against his owner? Not according to the law of the land in 4016 B.C. In fact that slave would be considered as the violent criminal.

So what was true in 4016 B.C. is no longer true today. It didn't work in the 1860's and so it was "fixed" by a bloody civil war.

We have improved on the "basic tenets of the Constitution of the USA" during the intervening 200+ years. We have abolished slavery and amended voting rights for all citizens instead of only white males.

So the process that was built into the Constitution to "fix it" was there because the FF's were astute enough to know that society evolves and if the Constitution did not evolve to keep pace with society it would become irrelevant.

We live in a different age that is more enlightened than when the Constitution was originally written and so We the People should work together to ensure that the government of the people and by the people is actually FOR ALL of the people too.

 

[Wildman]

As TJ said, The second amendment wont be needed until they try to take it away

-Geaux

IF the second amendment is taken away, so should the FIRST !! that should burn the asses of this forum.

 

[Wildman]

Y
The Constitution was not handed down by the flying spaghetti monster or any other deity. It is a document written by men who lived in another century. Life today does not depend upon slaves and horses. The FF were smart enough to realize that things change and made adequate provision for those changes. If you don't like the changes then work to pass an Amendment with your "strict constructionism" enshrined in it and see how far you get.

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

So freedom of speech, press, and religion are all bad/obsolete since they were written by white slave owners over 200 years ago?

That provision you speak of is called the Amendment process, and it was used to Amend the Constitution to force strict constructionism by the 10th Amendment.

Preamble Bill of Rights.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Clearly the Founders considered Strict Construcionism to be vital to prevent oppression.

Deal with it.

USMB Roll Call, SALUTE!

[MENTION=19543]Geaux4it[/MENTION] [MENTION=40803]House[/MENTION] [MENTION=27958]LadyGunSlinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION] [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION] [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION] [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION] [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION] [MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=11944]Mad Scientist[/MENTION] [MENTION=5035]GHook93[/MENTION] [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] [MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION] [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION] [MENTION=46110]pvsi[/MENTION] [MENTION=39750]Intolerant[/MENTION] [MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=24036]R.C. Christian[/MENTION] [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] [MENTION=42380]OriginalShroom[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] [MENTION=20545]Mr. H.[/MENTION] [MENTION=47870]Vigilante[/MENTION] [MENTION=13580]CaféAuLait[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=31153]HenryBHough[/MENTION] [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=11635]Kat[/MENTION]zndog [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=47812]CorvusRexus[/MENTION]ENTION=19543]Geaux4it[/MENTION] [MENTION=40803]House[/MENTION] [MENTION=27958]LadyGunSlinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION] [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION] [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION] [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION] [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION] [MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=11944]Mad Scientist[/MENTION] [MENTION=5035]GHook93[/MENTION] [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] [MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION] [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION] [MENTION=46110]pvsi[/MENTION] [MENTION=39750]Intolerant[/MENTION] [MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=24036]R.C. Christian[/MENTION] [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] [MENTION=42380]OriginalShroom[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] [MENTION=20545]Mr. H.[/MENTION] [MENTION=47870]Vigilante[/MENTION] [MENTION=13580]CaféAuLait[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=31153]HenryBHough[/MENTION] [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=11635]Kat[/MENTION]zndog [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=47812]CorvusRexus[/MENTION]

why was i left out of this salute ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That seems contradictory.

Why?

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the concept, or how you're using it, but I thought the whole idea of a "living document" was that we could just adapt it to our current needs without amending it. It's usually presented as a more fluid alternative to updating it via the amendment process.

Perhaps you could try reading the Constitution first and finding out for yourself how that "adaption" process actually works. (Hint: Article V.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles, then email Congress and SCOTUS and enlighten them.

Times change, on the other hand, and the FF did not live in a wondrous and technological age such as today.

Many of them would say "well done."

So the racist far left Obama drone is going to lecture someone on Congress when they support a president that does not care about the Constitution and has been shot down by the Supreme Court a record nine times (9-0) for his unconstitutional acts.

He's harmless. This is what he normally does, bringing personal commentaries about those on this board more than adding anything to the discussion at hand. I just wait in hopes he may contribute something informative to respond to.

Shakles, that is exactly what you are doing right now and Kosh immediately before that.

The great thing after these years of fighting the far right and libertarians, there will be only a very few you of Congress. Finally.

Yell all you want. It makes no difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything of the sort!

What does this mean to you?

prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers

It means that "strict constructionist" oppressors like YOU are trying to subvert the Constitution for your own partisan political purposes.

Just so. The logic of 'strict construction' would lead to each state having their own gun laws, because the 2d Amendment applies to only the federal government.

 

[kaz]

What does this mean to you?

It means that "strict constructionist" oppressors like YOU are trying to subvert the Constitution for your own partisan political purposes.

Just so. The logic of 'strict construction' would lead to each state having their own gun laws, because the 2d Amendment applies to only the federal government.

That was true until the 14th amendment was ratified. Gun ownership rights now extend to States as well.

 

[DriftingSand]

Our first Constitution was pretty liberal for its time and a new Constitution would be even more liberal. The nation's history is of slow liberalism, too fast for some and too slow for others, but always in the liberal direction.

I don't agree. I believe there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. In fact, there are lots of wrong ways.

When a baker creates the perfect cake there is no need to "liberally" change the recipe over time. The perfect cake will ALWAYS be the perfect cake.

In 4016 B.C. a person had the right to defend himself and his family from a violent criminal. The same will be true of a person living in 2036 A.D.

In 2036 B.C. a person had the right to express his beliefs verbally. The same will be true of a person living in 2021 A.D.

There's an old saying that's simple but true: "if it works ... don't fix it." Who here truly believes that they can improve upon the basic tenets of the Constitution of the USA?

In 4016 B.C. a person had the right to own slaves. That slave would consider his owner to be a violent criminal. Would that slave have the right to defend himself against his owner? Not according to the law of the land in 4016 B.C. In fact that slave would be considered as the violent criminal.

So what was true in 4016 B.C. is no longer true today. It didn't work in the 1860's and so it was "fixed" by a bloody civil war.

We have improved on the "basic tenets of the Constitution of the USA" during the intervening 200+ years. We have abolished slavery and amended voting rights for all citizens instead of only white males.

So the process that was built into the Constitution to "fix it" was there because the FF's were astute enough to know that society evolves and if the Constitution did not evolve to keep pace with society it would become irrelevant.

We live in a different age that is more enlightened than when the Constitution was originally written and so We the People should work together to ensure that the government of the people and by the people is actually FOR ALL of the people too.

Nobody has EVER had the "right" to own slaves. Just because it was "legal" didn't make it right. You're confusing customs and various civil ordinances to God-given, natural rights. The initial Constitution deals with a man's natural-born rights under a broad code of human ethics. When a government says that I don't have a right to assemble or speak doesn't mean that I don't actually have those rights as man. So my initial argument stands.

 

[dblack]

Why?

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the concept, or how you're using it, but I thought the whole idea of a "living document" was that we could just adapt it to our current needs without amending it. It's usually presented as a more fluid alternative to updating it via the amendment process.

Perhaps you could try reading the Constitution first and finding out for yourself how that "adaption" process actually works. (Hint: Article V.)

Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. There is specified means for changing the contract. The living document approach functions as a 'workaround', changing the meaning of the constitution without amending its contents.