Originally Posted by detbuch
Do you see it that way because you thought it up on your own? Or are you accepting a progressive mantra because it sounds good, makes "sense," seems rational or reasonable?
Think again about a country being a living breathing thing. Can a country live and breathe on its own? Is it an actual organic being? Or is it a concept, an agreed to or forced union of actual, real, organic beings who do the living and breathing. And do they do so in unison? If a country were an actual living and breathing thing comprised of a multitude of separately living and breathing parts which breathed at different rates and lived in different ways (that diversity mantra so favored by progressives) it would be a very sick and dysfunctional thing. It would crumble and die a natural death.
That is why a country needs a rule of law which applies equally to all. And a free country (a free state as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) requires that those who minister the law do not do so as dictators, but as servants who stay within the bounds the People have prescribed for them. And the country, as such, must only evolve in the manner as the People make it so. And if all the People can evolve freely, than the People must account for that by abiding by a common precept, a rule of law which prescribes and permits that diverse evolution.
If the country evolves, not by the free actions and interactions of the People, but by edicts of a ruling class which go beyond the restrictions which guarantee a free State, then evolution is by edict, by fiat, by dictation which evolves the State from freedom to despotism.
And in the same manner, the Constitution is not living and breathing. It is a concept, an idea, a structure for a free State. It is a basic foundation for such a State. And when that structure in ways that transfer the rights and powers reserved for the People to the State, the State is less and less a free one. And, as transfers of power and rights occur, it becomes more and more a dictatorship.
There is built into the Constitution, a means to look to the future for change, there is an amendment process. It is intentionally difficult to amend, but that is a safeguard not a hindrance.
You could engage in that discussion, which I think would be instructive, especially if all of us did. Or you can just see it the way you do.
|
Threaded Mode