I'm saying that according to what I read on the Congress website there is an understanding now that rather than amend the Constitution left and right as you and I thought they would have to, they instead allow our representatives write new laws as needed.
The reasoning was that if they didn't do that the original Constitution would lose it's historic reverence with too many amendments.
They instead do gymnastic interpretation of the Constitution rather than grow the amendments.
As a purest I am sure you and many others don't like that method.
The Congress and Courts have seemed to make that their reasoning for not creating what could be thousands of amendments.
I don't say I think that is the best way, but I cans see where if you add a bunch of amendments the Constitution would eventually be lost in add-ons.
I don't mind a better other way to handle this issue. I do understand how the Government went this route to handle a modern world.
I also fully understand that EVERYTHING more or less came to be through the Constitution as originally written.
I also have no problem with going about doing things differently. I just don't see anything to logically do so out there.
As I told David the former USMC warrior (who along with many Libertarians wants everybody to legally doing illegal drugs) on another thread. I am sure before the Congress would allow all kinds of what we know as SIN to be going on in the name of FREEDOM, I guarantee they would first amend the heck out of the Constitution before they would allow anarchy. (Freedom run amuck)
Happy Easter to you.
I think the basic concept that controls here is that no government works for the people much past initial inception. Many work against the people at inception. It doesn't matter if there is a constitution or not. We have an elderly government now. National Alzheimers has progressed.
One of the symptoms that the condition has progressed to the point of madness is that people want to empower the government to invade by law personal choices and conditions that are between them and God, and have no destructive effect on society as a whole.
Under these conditions it does not matter what safeguards there are; they will be circumvented, as evidenced by the fact that laws against drugs and guns have been initiated, not through amendment, but expanding Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 to insane limits.
I'm reluctant to argue with you about this problem because you support that expansion, because elements of that expansion fits your personal prejudices. This kind of attitude has been anticipated by big government hogs and is being used to their advantage and against your's and our's.
From your posts on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that what you want to have is tantamount to a theocracy. But you have to remember such a form of governing will be run by human beings, and any seat of government of whatever form is a repository of wealth and power, the most attractive and the most corrosive to the human spirit known. They attract sociopaths, who are willing to use methods no available to more ethical people, so they will ineviditably prevail.
What we have now, constitution-wise and the amendment process, is probably the best method to ride herd on corruption, and even it isn't working, as you note. Anything tried heretofore has been worse.
Think about it. Libertarianism does not grow in a sterile medium, and all systems tend toward balance. Consider libertarians compose the force driving toward a balance, and your attitudes are the driving force toward an inbalance. All your efforts against libertarianism simply drive it and all your efforts give it power and force.
