Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evil Milkman
The Constitution was indeed written with the intent that it should be changeable.
But there's a process to do it legally. We can't afford to just ignore it and call it outdated.
|
Agreed that the Constitution was written with the intent that it should be changeable. As a result, there have been 27 amendments (10 by the first Congress) from the late 18th century to the 21st century....a remarkable few in number IMO.
Why so few in such a time span of drastic changes in the evolution of the country?
I would suggest because the framers also envisioned and intended that an independent judiciary would be the final interpreter of the Constitution as the fledgling nation grew and evolved.
(The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court........The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made....)
And in those 200+ years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in a manner that recognizes and attempts to balance the evolution of the country with the various "original intents" of the different framers..thus negating a need for amendments every time the intent of the Constitution is raised by an interested or affected person or state.
The problem I have with Ron Paul and many of his ardent supporters is their unwillingness to accept interpretations of the Supreme Court if it differs with their own interpretation of "original intent" of the framers...when, in fact there were often mixed intents among and between those wise and thoughtful 18th century framers of what can be described as a purposefully broadly worded document in many sections/clauses (eg the general welfare clause and the different intents as expressed by Madison and Hamilton, the establishment clause of the first amendment, etc).