[btcusn]

I said it's an old document, because, it is. My point was it may not apply or cover situations the founders didn't predict. Certainly a technology-related amendment like one related to weapons would be the first to become potentially obsolete.


Now slow down here!! Is what you are saying is if I think the Constitution is outdated in areas, well just twist the words to make them fit?? Remember this is the SUPREME law of the land, to justify twisting it's meaning is the same thing as saying I can twist ANY law to fit my needs.
If you don't like something in the Constitution, AMMEND IT, DO NOT DISREGUARD IT! Welfare, Medicare, Dept of ED to name a few are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I didn't say they were bad, but the Constitution should have been ammended to allow the passage of such laws.
BTW, I'm from the northeast too and I call it the war of northen aggression. It was a matter of states rights to leave the nation if desired.
Jack

[JediJones]

This is an argument about what is better for our society. I'm not overly worried about what the constitution says when dealing in general theory like this. If we came to a conclusion that the constitution supported, fine, if we felt we would have to amend it, that is another issue. But I don't approach an argument strictly from the basis of what the constitution says.

Also, I don't believe any state has a right to just walk away from the country legally or in theory. And regardless, we would have a moral authority to destroy institutions like slavery whether they were within our borders or not. Which is the same reason I support the Iraq war and other such efforts to spread and maintain our superior values throughout the world.