Replies

risk wrote:

Reinterpreting the Constitution is going to destroy the Republic.

Indeed it will, and imho, it has already started to do so.

I recently ran across this very generalized comment on the basics of our Constitution. - I'd bet that a majority of the FReepers on this board would not agree with all of its points, points that should be clear to anyone who has read the document:

______________________________________

The Constitution of the United States

The U.S. Constitution is the central instrument of all levels of government in the USA and the "supreme law of the land".

It is the oldest written Constitution in the world that is in force. It was written in 1787 in Philadelphia by the Continental Congress of the new American republic and was officially adopted in 1789.

The objective of the writers was to outline the structure of a new, strong central government after the years of weakness and chaos resulting from the preexisting "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" which loosely bound the colonies together since 1778.

The U S Constitution outlines the structure and powers of the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) and the 3 levels of government (federal, state, local).

The basic principles of the Constitution are the same today as when it was written:

1--The 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) are separate and each is checked and balanced off by the power of the other two, and by the powers of the States and the people.

2--The U S Constitution is supreme.

3-All persons are equal before the law, as are all States. Each State must have a republican form of government and respect the law of other States, and the individual rights of the people.

4--The people can only change the U S Constitution by the methods and according to the principles outlined within it.

1--The 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) are separate and each is checked and balanced off by the power of the other two, and by the powers of the States and the people.

In addition to these checks, I would add two more:

The press, including Free Republic and other electronic means for exchanging information such as FAX (think: Poland and Russian Samizdat), E-mail, and independent TV. Only a free press, unlicensed, and unfettered by gag orders, topic windows, and election-related calendars will be effective. CFR (campaign finance reform) is unconstitutional.
The second-amendment protected right of the people to keep and bear military-grade weapons. After the power to persuade, and in defense of our right to freely communicate with each other, this may be the most important freedom of all in defending each of the others. Silveira v. Lockyer is unconstitutional.

I also agree that changing the Constitution is the only way to impart interpretive change to its meaning (or even to add to it).

People who want to change what the Constitution means should be free to discuss that and propose any change that follows the guidelines of life, liberty, and the pursuit (not the promise of it) of happiness for individuals. These rights are very narrowly defined in terms of what individuals can do without including others. There are no collective rights.