American history makes the compelling argument. If that doesn’t convince you my words won’t either. But, you shouldn’t go saying things that aren’t supported by reality.
To talk against the Constitution is to talk against America.
For some time I have maintained that the problems we suffer in politics is not from our Constitution, but from poor management.
There was some story a while back where a parking valet had crashed an expensive Ferrari; nobody blamed the car.
If a murder is committed by a firearm, what type of person blames the gun? What type of person wants gun control?
The human element can destroy the best designs of machine or government. That’s a fact that deserves serious consideration, not one that should be trivialized.
Blaming our Constitution for our problems strikes me as an argument ripe with typical liberalism. One needs to believe the living and breathing applications of law in order to violate the Constitution’s principles; and you need to excuse the improper behavior of managers to support your argument.
If one does that, it means that laws mean little to nothing. Once that tactic is used, every law and every proposed law is meaningless. So, the Constitution is meaningless; if it is meaningless, how can you blame the Constitution?
Ergo, arguments against the Constitution are meaningles.
Q.E.D.
No it isn't. There was a United States of America for quite a while without the Constitution. Fought and won a revolution without it, matter of fact.
What's the priority? I think it ought to be liberty.