Long live the Constitution (subject to change) ***BARF ALERT!!!***

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, November 17, 2002 | Ken Gormley

[Willie Green]

I found myself at a conference last month in Cologne, Germany, sitting amid 200 European leaders and academics, sipping Mineralwasser and Coca-Cola "Light," debating the wisdom of a proposed constitution for the European Union. At one point, it struck me: We Americans do not appreciate, nearly enough, how lucky we are that our Founding Fathers put our Constitution on parchment.

[davisfh]

"...we may need to re-evaluate and update this fundamental document periodically,"

What a frightening prospect that is.

[Willie Green]

Those who are impatient to rip the document to shreds always favor a Constitutional Convention to the more traditional amendment process provided by our Founders.

[Fintan]

A new European Constitution, if it comes into being, may eventually outshine the American document simply by virtue of its comprehensiveness and modernity.

Uh, I don't think so Skippy...

[fone]

I remember the "con-con" effort in 1995, spearheaded by (then) Gov. Mike Levitt (sp?). Fortunately, there were enough awake Americans to rattle their statehouses to stop the nonsense.

Remain forever vigilant.

[Sam Cree]

Thanks for the barf alert.

"Without a written Constitution, the United States would have likely fallen into obscurity before the Founding Fathers were laid to rest"

Without a written Constitution, the United States would have likely fallen into socialism, as the citizens voted away their rights in return for the empty promises of charismatic politicians.

There is already a mechanism, amendments, in place to change the Constitution whenever we wish. It is good enough.

So far no foreign constitution has come close to our document, which takes "rights" to mean those rights which are concerned with individual freedom and personal liberty, as opposed to "entitlements," which can only be granted by allowing government the ability to arbitrarily take from one citizen to give to another.

Once rights are something that the government "provides," such as "the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence," then the government is also empowered to take them away. In fact, it cannot provide anyone with anything without taking away from someone else.

Our Constitution is unique and precious in that it protects our rights from the government rather than making government an all powerful authority that is the bestower of rights, as in other countries.

[Willie Green]

That is certainly worth repeating:

"Our Constitution is unique and precious in that it protects our rights from the government rather than making government an all powerful authority that is the bestower of rights, as in other countries."

THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[The FRugitive]

What was the proposed "equal rights amendmant" about?

[inquest]

Isn't that just like a typical lib? All he does is make a bunch of sideswipes about how our Constitution isn't "modern" enough for him, but gives us absolutely no indication of what he thinks is wrong with it. Tell us what you think is deficient about it, THEN propose some changes. Oh, wait - that would mean people might hold him accountable for what he has in mind for us. Scratch that idea.

[steve50]

The problem is with the living breathing concept, makes it easier to reinterpet than rewrite. The general welfare clause has been the death of us

[Willie Green]

The Constitution was gutted in 1913. How is it you don't know?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Heard it all before...
You're just P-O'd about getting too many points on your driver's license...
I'm not into tinfoil hat interpretations.

[inquest]

The general welfare clause has been the death of us

At least once it got turbo-charged by the 16th amendment.

[Willie Green]

What was the proposed "equal rights amendmant" about?

Making feminazi-ism part of our Constitution.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

I am just going to stop reading anything written by a college professor. I just cant take their absolute insanity anymore

[Timesink]

If we, in the United States, had the opportunity to refine and update our Constitution at the dawn of the 21st century, what a unique opportunity it would be.

We DO have the opportunity, just as we have every day since the document was adopted. YOU, "Professor," just don't like that said opportunity requires a huge number of Americans to agree on any such fundamental change. YOU just want to change the rules so that you would have a several-orders-of-magnitude better chance to force upon the rest of the nation new rules that YOU know are extremely unpopular. Nice try, but you'll always be a loser.

[f.Christian]

If it is to endure, however, we may need to re-evaluate and update this fundamental document periodically, in order to cope with new technological and legal-ethical issues that the Founders could never have imagined.

*...new!

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION/perfection'*!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age of lies/revision*...

[Marie Antoinette]

The process for amending the U.S. Constitution, in a piecemeal fashion, is so difficult that any proposed amendment even mildly controversial (such as the Equal Rights Amendment that gasped its final breath in 1982 after 10 years of floundering about) is almost doomed to failure -- making it difficult to bring our fundamental charter in line with changing times, changing technologies and changing societal norms.

This is why I don't ever want to see a constitutional convention. What is being defined these days as "norms" are abberations and freaky wierdness. No way do I want a bunch of oddly educated, liberals, socialists, homosexual, abortionists. involved in rewriting our constitution.

Mr.M

[Teacher317]

Constitutional Convention to address our changing times? Sure! The Founding Fathers may not have expressly foreseen the Communist Manifesto and the UN, but they would certainly have wanted to make provisions against entanglements with either.

We need to repeal the 16th Amendment, make property rights secure against unneccessary seizures (for golf courses, scenic interstate spots, animals, etc), explicitly forbid the Judiciary from making law (should only able to declare laws unConstitutional), and addresss the open border/immigrant benefits issues.

Unfortunately, the Socialists will find a way to ramrod some utterly horrid ideas through, so it probably isn't a safe bet.

[x]

Europe will face the same problems with its constitution that we did and for the same reason: is the union a loose confederation of sovereign states or is it a nation that requires some degree of centralized government?

That doesn't mean that our constitution was flawed. Rather, it worked well: power was set against power to increase and preserve individual liberty. But it would be wise if Europe were to spell out some things that were left out of our constitution: particularly the process of leaving or dissolving the union, if a nation or region desires.

It seems like all recent constituions have incorporated the idea of judicial review which developed here in the US. There's something to be said for allowing judges to decide the constitutionality of laws but it's not always a good thing. Judicial review can provide a means of increasing federal power at the expense of other government units and the beliefs of large parts of the population.