Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
How would it ever be altered, if it can only be interpreted as Ron Paul, and you, dksuddeth advocate that it has to be? I'm also assuming that you would advocate eliminating most....or all....of the amendments to the constitution, to "restore" it to "legality".
...and what of the amendments eliminating slavery and establishing women's suffrage, in your "non-living", legal document, view?
|
It is called Article 5 of the constitution. This is the method to modify, alter, or amend the constitution.
Quote:
|
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
|
So any amendment made so far, is completely legal and didn't require a judicial moral, political, and cultural climate of the age interpretation mumbo jumbo excuse.
Ron Paul has stuck to the constitution, whereas no other politician in the last 150 years has done, and this should tell each and every one of us that neither the republicans OR democrats are interested in following the constitution, but in pursuing their 'vision' of a non-free america.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
The constitution must be able to change with time.
|
really? if you truly advocate that view, then what is to stop ANY branch of the government from offering up their own 'change with the times' interpretation of infringing on your precious freedom of speech or privacy?
there is a built in process for 'change' and it is not by judicial social engineering.