|
[QUOTE=detbuch;1118553]Law is not up to you nor I to change. Different arguments whether affected by time or personal whim cannot change law. Law is formal. And it must be changed in a formal manner.
As I said, if you think mere time or point of view can change the Constitution, you don't understand it. If you don't think the Constitution should any longer be applied, that's a different story. That would be the Progressive argument. Understandably, the structure of the Constitution makes the Progressive idea of government impossible to apply, so, if it cannot be done by amendment, unless there is some kind of revolt by enough people to forcefully eliminate the Constitution, then change must be done by deception or "interpretation."
As I said, since you and I have shown that we do not agree on what constitutional "interpretation" is, we can't agree on what freedoms have been lost.
But isn't that the problem "the interpretation of data" if we had the same "interpretation" why even take about it?
And it doesn't seem by your responses, that lost freedoms are of any concern to you. Mentioning them is mere nostalgia--the blanket of the fearful. My concern is to you all losses Taken have been nefarious ... when I in fact see the March of time and the modern age and technology our founders had great vision but it was impossible for them to provide a document that would address every scenario presented in todays world [/QUOTE
The constitution is not a size fit all document
The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations. If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change.
so well have to agree to disagree
|