[RoadGumby]

You know, there is a lot of back-and-forth between the left and Right about the Constitution. One topic that never seems to get resolved is that "It was written 200+ years ago, things are different now, we need to be able to adapt."

My take on this is that our Constitution is, simply, a procedure that tells the governement how it is to operate. It really is a beautifully written document. So, in the past 200 years, I'd have to agree, things have changed. The real sticky part is that no one seems to realize that the Constitution has within it, the mechanism for change.

For example, if we as a nation decide that we can no longer afford to have an armed populace, then we need to amend the Constitution to give the Gov't power to remove the guns from society.

Just opting to begin ignoring or 'interpreting' parts to get your desired result is to declare ALL portions null and void. Why adhere to any when some are ignored?

I wish Judge Roberts had slapped Shumer with "My job as Justice is to read and apply the Constitution. If you don't like the way it is written, then you do YOUR job and change it."

[George Smiley]

For example, if we as a nation decide that we can no longer afford to have an armed populace, then we need to amend the Constitution to give the Gov't power to remove the guns from society.

You'd start the mother of all legal debates.

That is, assuming that the soap box was the only box used under those circumstances.