On Amendments
Perhaps I should have stated last week that I intended this column to be the first in a two part series. I made a considerable number of statements which while true, many may consider irrelevant due to the necessity of our times.
Many that I have spoken with agree that the concept behind both racial and religious profiling is inconsistent with The Constitution. Many of those same people, however, disagree and believe that while it may not be consistent with The Constitution, it works, and therefore ought to be implemented anyway.
Still others see that the people's right to peaceably assemble is not conducive to a secure state, and as such, in a time of terrorism and war our rights to speech and assembly ought to be curtailed.
Many others see that the concept of due process inhibits the government from adequately protecting citizens of this nation. As a result they feel that security necessitates the occasional shortcuts in the processes outlined in The Constitution.
Let us get away from these more recent changes, and use the older issue of gun control as an example. The Constitution states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Some feel that an armed populace is necessary for a people to be free from the oppression and tyranny of government. Others feel that it has become the responsibility of the government to protect the people, and if that means taking away the people's right to keep and bear arms, so be it. What one feels on this issue is, while important, irrelevant to this argument. The Constitution states that the right of the people shall not be infringed, and as such, the right of the people shall not be infringed. If you agree with the need of such a rule, defend it. If you disagree and see that its necessity has vanished over time, change the rule.
Certain rights, those of assembly and speech, those that guarantee the right to bear arms, those that outline a system of due processes, and those regarding religion were seen as incredibly important for the establishment of a free society.
Things change. That is why The Constitution was developed in such a way as to allow for change. There are rules in place that outline the proper way to amend the document. All thing's considered, that is my principle complaint with the government of this nation.
The establishment of law that infringes on rights guaranteed by The Constitution without first amending it is an action undertaken by a government which has decided it need not follow its own rules of conduct. A government which will not follow its own rules is an arbitrary government. It is a government that has gotten out of control, and a government that needs to be informed by it's populace that rules are not meant to be broken; they are meant to be followed.
“Article V: This Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution…”
If you feel that the rules need to change, then change them. Do not ignore them. By ignoring them you become arbitrary, by becoming arbitrary you lose the trust of the people. A government that loses the trust of the people must be changed by the people.
Many that I have spoken with agree that the concept behind both racial and religious profiling is inconsistent with The Constitution. Many of those same people, however, disagree and believe that while it may not be consistent with The Constitution, it works, and therefore ought to be implemented anyway.
Still others see that the people's right to peaceably assemble is not conducive to a secure state, and as such, in a time of terrorism and war our rights to speech and assembly ought to be curtailed.
Many others see that the concept of due process inhibits the government from adequately protecting citizens of this nation. As a result they feel that security necessitates the occasional shortcuts in the processes outlined in The Constitution.
Let us get away from these more recent changes, and use the older issue of gun control as an example. The Constitution states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Some feel that an armed populace is necessary for a people to be free from the oppression and tyranny of government. Others feel that it has become the responsibility of the government to protect the people, and if that means taking away the people's right to keep and bear arms, so be it. What one feels on this issue is, while important, irrelevant to this argument. The Constitution states that the right of the people shall not be infringed, and as such, the right of the people shall not be infringed. If you agree with the need of such a rule, defend it. If you disagree and see that its necessity has vanished over time, change the rule.
Certain rights, those of assembly and speech, those that guarantee the right to bear arms, those that outline a system of due processes, and those regarding religion were seen as incredibly important for the establishment of a free society.
Things change. That is why The Constitution was developed in such a way as to allow for change. There are rules in place that outline the proper way to amend the document. All thing's considered, that is my principle complaint with the government of this nation.
The establishment of law that infringes on rights guaranteed by The Constitution without first amending it is an action undertaken by a government which has decided it need not follow its own rules of conduct. A government which will not follow its own rules is an arbitrary government. It is a government that has gotten out of control, and a government that needs to be informed by it's populace that rules are not meant to be broken; they are meant to be followed.
“Article V: This Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution…”
If you feel that the rules need to change, then change them. Do not ignore them. By ignoring them you become arbitrary, by becoming arbitrary you lose the trust of the people. A government that loses the trust of the people must be changed by the people.