“As to differing opinion regarding, living, 'pragmatic', 'contract', 'strict construction' and the like, don't you suppose we all have our preferences and reasons? IMO, the elegance of the thing was the built in flexibility and adaptibility..it could grow with the nation.”
Grandpa's face lit up in a big smile as he recognized the voice as being one of his best friends whom he has had many a friendly political discussion with over the years.
"Yes, my friend, I do suppose that but I also suppose that words have meaning and the meaning of those words has an effect on attitudes also. And it be from the meaning of words that lead people down different paths of life as well as understanding the goals of government. It is from these differences of meaning that separate this nation instead of uniting it as it should.
Isn't the very fact that you are challenging me based on these differences proof of that?
There is nothing preventing the Constitution from being flexible or adaptable to any generation by the words I uses to define it. Any contract is a flexible document and any contract can be changed to adapt itself to differing situations as agreed upon by all parties of that contract. Thus the only difference between you and me must be in how that change can be determined and by what means can be used to bring about that change.
There have been charges that by taking my viewpoint it is declaring that the Constitution is a static document, meaning that it is unchangeable. Now, how can I declare it to be unchangeable when it itself declares that it can be amended as any generation feels a need to bring about changes to fit the needs of the times? The very fact that it has been amended as many times as it has is proof of its flexibility and adaptability to fit the needs of the nation as well as making our nation a more perfectly governed nation.
So, tell me, my friend, where are our differences and what is your reasoning for these differences other than the fact of ideological differences and ideological goals?
Not even the Articles of Confederation can be declared as a static document for if it was we would still be a nation governed under it instead of our present Constitution. And that document was changed after only a couple of years from its adoption so it was changed by the very generation that adopted it as was our present Constitution a couple of years after it was adopted.
So, my friend, how are you defining the word static that would make it impossible to see the Constitution as being a flexible and adaptable document by my definition of what it is?
As for flexibility, the founders offered two way for this nation to change the Constitution so as to adapt to the needs of this nation. The first way is through a constitutional convention so that the States could collectively make whatever changes they felt was necessary. The second way is by Congress proposing changes in the Constitution.
How can any Constitution be more flexible than that when there is a means for both parties to have the ability to propose changes and when those changes are adopted it can only be declared as an adoption by agreement of the parties involved in that agreement?
And you cannot declare that by the use of my definition is taking the Constitution out of context of the intent of the founding fathers for the central government as well as the States abided by it for over a hundred years after it was adopted. So, my friend that leads us to only one conclusion. It is your definition of it that has changed and I see no way that you can justify this change other than for ideological reasoning. And this change could only be for the purpose of changing the way we, the people, are governed as determined by our founding fathers.
If it was for this purpose, can you justify this change of governing?
So, while I have been making many assumptions in my response to you I am willing to admit that I may be missing something. If I am, please inform me and everyone here of that which I am not taking into consideration that you feel is so important. Show me how it could be any more flexible or adaptable so that there may be change based on agreement of all parties rather than by dictate of the few of one party of that document."
0 comments:
Post a Comment