Actually, I have no problem with the constitution changing. My problem is legislators who violate what has not changed and judges who use the phrase living document to revise the clear words that exist. I have no problem with the people modifying the Constitution, but I demand that our federal politicians follow it and that the judiciary also limit their role to interpretting not text, not to making new law. Narrow interpretation - YEP. Narrow-minded -- no friggin way!!!!
On Jun 28, 8:46 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > You've just written the point of my post. The Constitution is a living > document which has evolved over the last couple centuries. It's > changed. I'm not asking what you would change that would empower the > "Imperial Federal Government". It sounds like you might change > something to make even more clear, the intention to prevent one. Would > that be such a bad thing to make Constitutional? > > On Jun 28, 7:34 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I believe the Constition is a "living document" in that we have the > > right and the authority to change and improve it. But, we know > > exactly what it is today and we know what transpired regarding every > > change ever made. My problem remains that the imperial federal > > government is doing many things not in their power and often clearly > > precluded. Our Founding Fathers gave us a wonderful document, > > designed to be a work in process. But, one thing that has not changed > > is that their fear of the excessive power in the hands of a > > centralized government was well founded. > > > I hope I am making you think. We need more citizens who take > > individual freedoms seriously and value personal responsibility above > > the "social slavery system" encouraged by excessive government > > dependence. > > > On Jun 28, 8:26 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ok Richard so then "It is what it is" until it is something different. > > > Then it is what it is then! Until it isn't. But hey, it's very clear! > > > > On Jun 28, 7:14 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Note 2: The part of this Clause relating to the mode of apportionment > > > > of representatives among the several States has been affected by > > > > Section 2 of amendment XIV, and as to taxes on incomes without > > > > apportionment by amendment XVI. > > > > > The constitution was designed to be changed as appropriate. As I > > > > said, it is what it is. The problem is that the politicians are still > > > > doing many things beyond their authority. > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:00 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So then Richard, you think women should not vote, Indians who have not > > > > > been taxed and 3/5 of black male votes should be the law? The > > > > > Constitution is very clear in Article 1 Section 2 on this matter. > > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:51 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The constitution is what it is. The words are clear and the intent > > > > > > is > > > > > > well documented. The problem is not the constitution, but rather > > > > > > the > > > > > > politicians who attempt to exceed the powers they were granted. > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:45 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Obviously, much has changed over a couple hundred years. I see > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > on both sides of the aisle argue about this. > > > > > > > We need gun control. Wire-tapping Americans without a warrant is > > > > > > > fine > > > > > > > because it protects us. Gays should be able to marry. Due process > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > cruel & unusual punishment doesn't apply to everyone. Poor > > > > > > > Liberals > > > > > > > are denied their freedom of speech. Poor Conservatives are denied > > > > > > > their freedom of speech. And on it goes. > > > > > > > > The first thing I would change is the right to burn the American > > > > > > > Flag > > > > > > > in public. I just don't see it as a freedom of speech / > > > > > > > expression or > > > > > > > anything else. I don't see a need to protect this particular > > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > What would you change?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
