1--The 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) are separate and each is checked and balanced off by the power of the other two, and by the powers of the States and the people. In addition to these checks, I would add two more:
- The press, including Free Republic and other electronic means for exchanging information such as FAX (think: Poland and Russian Samizdat), E-mail, and independent TV. Only a free press, unlicensed, and unfettered by gag orders, topic windows, and election-related calendars will be effective. CFR (campaign finance reform) is unconstitutional.
- The second-amendment protected right of the people to keep and bear military-grade weapons. After the power to persuade, and in defense of our right to freely communicate with each other, this may be the most important freedom of all in defending each of the others. Silveira v. Lockyer is unconstitutional.
I also agree that
changing the Constitution is the only way to impart interpretive change to its meaning (or even to add to it).
People who want to change what the Constitution means should be free to discuss that and propose any change that follows the guidelines of life, liberty, and the pursuit (not the promise of it) of happiness for individuals. These rights are very narrowly defined in terms of what individuals can do without including others. There are no collective rights.
2nd amendment actually says "life, liberty, and property". Interesting that I don't know where "pursuit of happiness" came from. I'll check it out. Almost like the pledge of allegiance, which originally did not "under God" in it.