Please read the Constitution

[RoyalOrleans]

What I tell them is that is what amendments are for. The founding fathers put in a process to legally change the Constitution when a large majority wanted it changed.

A common arguement I hear from people for this new role of Government is that times are different now and we cannot expect the founding father's to create a system that is good considering modern needs........

Despite the year of its ratification, the Constitution is timeless and does not need to be rewritten. The problem is that the Constitution does not fit the needs of its opponents, so they find ambiguous statements and pervert them. The most disgusting part of the perversion of the Constitution is that the many social programs that have been implemented under the "promote general welfare" line in the preamble.

The preamble of the Constitution is just that: a preamble. It is not operative. Just as the preamble to the second amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", is not operative. It is, like other parts of the Constitution, an introduction to the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The preamble of the Constitution, merely served as an explanation as to why the document was being written. It proceeded to, in Article 1, Section 1, to say, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.."

In all subsequent sections, a preamble was again used to explain the purpose of the section. In Article 1, Section 8, the preamble states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” It's not operative. It’s nothing more than an explanation for the purpose of the section, followed by the operative. The powers listed after the preamble are ALL that Congress has purview over.

The ‘United States’ does not mean ‘people’, it means the country- the government. When the founders wrote the Constitution, they were very specific with the rights of the people. How would one know this? Well, they mentioned it specifically: “..the right of the people to peacefully assemble” (I Amendment); “the right of the people to be secure…” (IV Amendment); “….are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (X Amendment); “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” (II Amendment)

Healthcare is not a right, and it never has been. It is also not a federal power, it never has been. It is a state power, delegated to the states under the10th Amendment. If people want socialized healthcare, I’m fine with that. Massachusetts has it, and NO one has heard a peep from me. It is a disaster, but not one soul has heard me condemn it-- it is their right to institute it, no matter how much I hate the idea.

It was no accident that the constitution was written the way it was, as they knew full well that local government is more efficient and less oppressive than a centralized government, and took measures to ensure it. And they were right: the states of California and Michigan, as terribly screwed as they are, are FAR more efficient than the federal government. It’s why Chicago, as corrupt as that city is, is far less corrupt than the federal government. If the states want socialized healthcare, they should pursue it. Where it should not be pursued is in Congress, as they’ve absolutely zero authority to do so.

 

[timesjoke]

What I tell them is that is what amendments are for. The founding fathers put in a process to legally change the Constitution when a large majority wanted it changed.

True, but that process is difficult to follow (as it should be) and it is just easier to twist the rules to fit the desired outcome instead of actually changing them.

I believe we can all agree that all laws and guidelines are worthless without enforcement. The speed limit sign does not stop speeding, it is the cop on the side of the road that has to enforce the rules or they become almost non-existent. The same is true with our constitution, we have everyone from the Whitehouse to the congress ignoring their role of enforcement of the Constitution and the many courts all twisting the meanings until they have no comparison to original intent.

Why?

Because as you said Hugo, the Constitution is nothing more to them than an impeedment to where they want to go and what they want to do so why would they play enforcement against themselves?