[envision]

I agree:

"Major changes to our government need to be approached very. very cautiously, the enemy is hihtly organized and has plans for every contingency. One mistake and we have a new government." -- #50, templar

The Constitution is not an appropriate bulletin board for expressing outrage, especially these days. No matter how outrageous the thing you are steamed about.

We see the huge amount of nonsense loose all over the place. Court decisions, Federal government legislation and executive actions, bloated government, wacked-out people doing nutty things, etc.

What restrains (or used to restrain) these justices, congressmen, executives, lawyers? Things weren't this crazy, even 30 years ago. Tradition, fear of peer's disapproval, perhaps here and there wisdom and good sense were the restraints.

When those restraints begin to crumble, we loose a ring of defense around our liberties.

Marriage didn't need special constitutional protections 30 years ago, it was fine then. And: our Constitution hasn't changed. So something else must be wrong.

Therefore, devising shrewd "improvements," "reforms" to tack on to the Constitution is the wrong approach.

The only hands we could even begin to entrust to review and alter the Constitution must only be individuals as wise as those who debated and prepared the document originally.

The sorry bunch of officials and high political operators on the public scene today don't measure up. They can't even keep the country running as sanely as when they received it from yesteryear's leaders. They couldn't be trusted to "fix" the Constitution, they would damage it accidentally or by design, instead.

Were there some serious flaw in the Constitution, it likely would have turned up long before now, after 200 years of operating experience. Even if there were a serious flaw, we're safer to limp along with the Constitution we have than to trust the current crop of "leaders" to fiddle around with it.

It would be better to wait (a generation, if ever) until a new group of genuinely capable statesmen arrive before we dare to tamper with the Constitution.

[longtermmemmory]

when? When do we answer the call to do right? Kill this now and there may be no next generation. Remeber what hitler said, "who cares what you think, I have your children." This is about taking our children. In another generation these indoctrinated children will be lost and out duty to stop these degenerates will be gone. You will be in a re-education (diversity sensitivity) training school. Big brother loves you.

[Antoninus]

The Constitution is not an appropriate bulletin board for expressing outrage, especially these days. No matter how outrageous the thing you are steamed about. We see the huge amount of nonsense loose all over the place. Court decisions, Federal government legislation and executive actions, bloated government, wacked-out people doing nutty things, etc.

You're wrong. We, the people, have one check on the excesses of a rogue Supreme Court legislating from the bench. It is the Constitutional Amendment. I don't take the notion lightly at all. Personally, I think that you're underestimating the seriousness of the recent decision affirming the "right to sodomy." Either that, or your perfectly happy to see our cultural patrimony that allowed us to found and maintain this republic through so many years and trials, be sacrificed on the altar of the sexual "freedom" big lie.

Whatever your motivations, I find your reasoning utterly specious.

[Antoninus]

Marriage didn't need special constitutional protections 30 years ago, it was fine then. And: our Constitution hasn't changed. So something else must be wrong.

No, the Constitution hasn't changed. However, those interpreting the Constitution in the judiciary have. They now view it as a "living" document which allows them to find all kinds of novel new "rights" embedded within it that are nowhere to be found.

In 1963, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that "obscenity" (read, pornography) was protected by the First Amendment. This ruling was consistent with the previous 180 years of U.S. legal precedent. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled exactly the opposite. Tell me, what changed?

In this recent "right to sodomy" decision, the Court managed to completely contradict a decision on a similar case that was rendered 17 years ago. Again I ask you, what changed?

If you don't recognize that JUDICIAL FIAT ACTIVISM is the root cause of the cultural malaise in which we find ourselves, you're out of touch with reality.

[ninenot]

As you may have heard, Rush led the program today musing about the 'possible necessity' of this Amendment.

Well--it'll get people talking. Nice play on his part. He could be serious about it, but what he's trying to impart is that the Supremes have gone utterly mad and lack only the foam-at-the-mouth to prove it.