Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker14
I should correct you on an earlier post when you asked "where does the Constitution support slavery?" I had never said it did, the point I had made was that in its original form, it did. Through change, through Amendment, slavery was abolished.
So, my point is, that while it's a great Constitution, change can occur. And sometimes change is good. Not always, but sometimes.
I agree with your right to believe, and proclaim loudly, that the direction we are heading is to a more socialist view, and that you think that's a bad thing.
The points I've tried to make is that it is wrong to label those who voted in the Dems as "Kool-Aid" Drinkers, or just those looking for hand-outs from the government.
It is also wrong to point a finger at the Constitution and say that document prohibits social welfare, or changes from its original form that would facilitate social change. And furthermore, that its original form had stuff in it that really needed to be changed, and was changed, eventually.
|
However, Constitutional "Change" is not something accomplished by the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch through creative interpretation. The Constitutional Amendment process is solely Legislative and is no easy matter - for darned good reason.
We've already had one painful lesson (the 18th and 21st Amendments) in trying to legislate social change via Constitutional Amendments. Hopefully we've learned from that experience. What may be the "modern" thought can also be simply something in vogue for a very short time, and destined to fall by the wayside for the next "modern" thought.
If one wants to change the Constitution, the process is in place to do so. When one wants to bypass that process through obviously illegal and unconstitutional actions, then hopefully the roof will fall in on the fool.