Out of all of this thoughtful and thought-provoking writing, I am going to home in on something that drives me a bit crazy. The idea of some people that we MUST interpret the Constitution as it was regarded on the day it was signed into being. This, in spite of the wrangling over it and the deals hammered out, interprets the Founding Fathers as being of one mind and we can't deviate. This, in spite of the fact that those very same men built in a way to CHANGE it. People accept the 2nd Amendment, and consider it sacrosanct, but the 17th Amendment is too much, in their minds, and shouldn't exist. Well, they are nuts because it came into being under the system that was setup to start with; they drive me nuts.
The rant is done, I'm going back to mumbling over my coffee. Thanks.
Out of all of this thoughtful and thought-provoking writing, I am going to home in on something that drives me a bit crazy. The idea of some people that we MUST interpret the Constitution as it was regarded on the day it was signed into being. This, in spite of the wrangling over it and the deals hammered out, interprets the Founding Fathers as being of one mind and we can't deviate. This, in spite of the fact that those very same men built in a way to CHANGE it. People accept the 2nd Amendment, and consider it sacrosanct, but the 17th Amendment is too much, in their minds, and shouldn't exist. Well, they are nuts because it came into being under the system that was setup to start with; they drive me nuts.
The rant is done, I'm going back to mumbling over my coffee. Thanks.
Absolutely! The main reason why I bring it up is because:
(1) It exposes the hypocrisy of the faction that pretends to be defenders of the constitution’s “original intent”.
and
(2) It’s a window into the thinking behind the system that we were handed down, and where that thinking clearly went wrong in hindsight.