Quote:
Originally Posted by Keedy
I personally think alot of which has been said is alot of hooey! This is just more politics from a Chicago politician. The left wants a "live" constitution instead of interpreting what the founding father's wrote. If you twist, stretch, expand, dilute and keep changing the form of the constitution...it will become unrecognizable.
Keedy
|
Well, I'll have to remind you of the same thing I reminded someone else, in another thread.
If we didn't have a "live" Constitution, one that could be amended with the times, we'd still have slavery as a protected institution, and women would not be able to vote. Neither would Native Americans nor African Americans.
So, I assume that you either want to be able to change it as people's awareness of the original document's social inequities develops, or, you think we should be stuck with the original document, as written , in which case you think those people shouldn't vote, and you think human slavery should continue to be protected in the Constitution.
So, which is it?