The one refuses to recognize that amendments in fact do function as intended. I have shown you examples. If you think about it for a moment you would understand that these are process amendments. Hence, an amendment for term limits would certainly be observed if properly drafted. An amendment, equally well drafted, that compels a balanced budget would also likely be observed, and if observed sometimes in the breach would nevertheless constitute great relative progress.
The other otherwise reasonable conservative contents himself with rewriting the English language to make politics into "slavery." He would be well to remember that the framers understood human nature, conceived of man as flawed and expected men to contrive, to corrupt, even to redefine language to achieve their selfish ends. That is why they provided for checks and balances, between equal branches of government limited to enumerated powers. The same framers foresaw that human nature would contrive to evade the Constitution, hence they provided us an amendment process.
To content oneself with naysaying and self righteously demanding that human nature change, is to condemn us to a slouch into tyranny.
We can deny history, we can play language games, or we can avail ourselves of a constitutional remedies to the trespasses we all decry. Do you gentlemen not understand that the more you argue that the Constitution is being evaded, the more you need to stop passively accepting that state of affairs, to stop denying the realities of history, to contenting yourself with complaining, exaggerating and relabeling the problem when you might actually fix it.
