by Linda Gehring

Created on: February 24, 2009   Last Updated: March 12, 2009

While I voted yes on this strictly "yes or no" question, I did so with a caveat. The point and facts are, the Constitution as it is written until lawfully amended is not only "right," it is the Law of the Land. In other words, contrary to the liberal mindset, it is not a "living document" in it's interpretations until it is amended in the manner proscribed within it to so bring what might be "wrong" for today current. Personally, since the Constitution was written in order to insure freedom in this country and in order to protect those freedoms, I can't see any reason with the exception of the amendments which either they originally made which were actually anticipated at the time the original was signed (such as the Bill of Rights) or the provisions which were subsequently made in order to equalize what clearly was in dispute at the time (the slavery issue) where much change at all would ever be necessary. What is needed is recission of the unconstitututional legislation which has been passed at both the state and federal level contrary to it's terms. Such as the Supreme Court decision that actually created another party to it in the form of "corporate person-hood" which has progressively been given more "privileges and immunities" far greater now than the lawful citizens, and whose influence now runs rampant on Capitol Hill for their special interests at the cost, again, of the American citizens.

The founders actually faced far greater threats than we do today with respect to national security issues. Those small 13 colonies only had muskets and canons to protect an entire Eastern Seaboard. They fought a war in order to free themselves from sovereign dictates, and corporate control (remember the Boston Tea Party and the oppressive East India Company). The problems we face today actually are directly related to the fact that those in Washington have abandoned the Constitution in favor of "liberal" interpretations with the "living document" mindset. There is no "general welfare" clause. As a matter of fact, James Madison, the father of the Constitution had this to say about liberally interpreting the provisions contained within the Constitution contrary to their intent:

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>