[btcusn]

This is an argument about what is better for our society. I'm not overly worried about what the constitution says when dealing in general theory like this. If we came to a conclusion that the constitution supported, fine, if we felt we would have to amend it, that is another issue. But I don't approach an argument strictly from the basis of what the constitution says.

Well, you can discuss all you want, but when it comes to making law, remember the oath of office for ALL that serve, in Govt or the military. I swear to protect and defend the CONSITIUTION, not the in power govt if what they are doing is unconstitutional. Slavery was a dying institution at the time of the Civil War, and was not the root cause of it, the root cause was the Federal Govt usurping powers that belonged to the states (as I understand it, anyway).
You are right, things in modern times could not have been envisioned by the founders, and they knew that. Therefore amendments are the correct way to change it, not to call it a "Living Document" and bend it to fit your will. If it's that important to enact a law that requires a amendment, let the people of the country vote on it through their state representives. It may not seem a big point to some, but many have given all for that piece of paper. V/r, Jack

[JediJones]

But in supporting the piece of paper you support its internal permission to amend it. Therefore we can always have an extra-constitutional discussion that might require us to amend the constitution. Therefore, using the argument "but the constitution says this" doesn't help in a case like that. How come I don't see this up-in-arms defense of preserving the constitution when Bush talks about an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Which I would support.

[Mulder]

it's that important to enact a law that requires a amendment, let the people of the country vote on it through their state representives.

That's exactly why the "domestic enemies of the Constitution" keep referring to it as a living document.

They know they will NEVER get the ~70% support required for a Constitutional amendment to implement their statist agenda, so they invented the concept of a "living Constitution" so that corrupt judges would illegally validate it when a mere 51% voted to enact some tyrannical legislation.