Sure. Let's take a look at that grand rag, that dear document, blow off the dust, d'ya need a translator? Just a few things, just a couple innocent observations. Oh you have to be careful, it is always dangerous to question the sacred, and that, why that, o.k. enough, bring it here, let's see, let's see what is written there.
Mmmm, section 2 Clause 3, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." Are you familiar with the term gerrymandering? Should be, big case in Texas made a lot of news not too long ago. But all is well, nothing was done that was wrong. Life goes on, whoever is in power next can redraw the districts to their liking...Good ole Mr. Delay smiling over that handiwork. Such as it is.
Section 4 Clause 2, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day." Affected by the 20th amendment in this way, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day." Ha! At least once a year. Oh dear. How can bureaucrats justify an existence based on that. You know that becomes the point. Because you see the status quo can never be good enough. There has to be constant tinkering, constant addition or subtraction of duties, by God let's be clear we are vital. Lets be clear you need us. I guess I need toothaches too, to let me know when my tooth is rotten.
Section 8 Clause 5, ouch a bit of a doozy there, could spend more than one bloody long night in the local bar pushing words around over that one, here we go, "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" regulate the value thereof? Regulate the value? Well sweet cheeks, ever hear of the Fed? The Federal Reserve regulates the value, and I hate to tell you this but the Fed isn't a part of your elected government, much less a branch of congress. Better suck up a bit of faith to swallow that one, and if you don't like the taste the syrup of Ipecac is right over here...
Now this part, there is a biggy here so lets turn ourselves to this part. The Bill, the blessed Bill...
Two. You gotta love this one, the money spent on defending or attacking this one probably equals the GDP of some small countries, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now if we look back at Section 8 Clause 15 where we were talking about the congress, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" What we're saying here is that congress may need to call every farmer, urbanite, or whatever and say, 'hey grab that shotgun or pistol and come running because the invaders are here, or those nuts rioting on the east side don't seem to like us'. Brother that aint never happenin'. So let's say if congress did want this ready made militia, well if they did the argument should not be about arcane points of what makes an assault rifle, it should be about getting shoulder fired surface to air missiles in the "peoples" hands. Needless to say congress isn't too interested in that because the ready assumption that the "militia" would be friendly to the congress may not be so clear in some parts of this great union. And if you think your thirty ought six is going to protect your property against unreasonable seizure, or whatever, think again, the arms people are permitted to have aren't protecting anything, not that the dear old paper here gives people that right anyway. Bloody wake up folks, the arguments over this issue as presented are so off base it's crazy, at least insofar as the dear old document is concerned. And please dont tell me how insurgents show the great power of small arms, insurgents show the power of explosives, and the right to bear arms doesn't include explosives.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Numero nine. Man try to get your head around THAT. What determines my other unspoken rights? I want to know, I really do!
O.k. now we didn't go anywhere near the abortion issue, nor the right of the congress to regulate commerce between the states, which opens up a huge can of worms that allows for so many federal laws you wouldn't believe in your wildest dreams. Here is the battleground for many states rights issues. And it's all up to those courts.
It's all up to the courts. Got that? You want to cry about your activist courts. Unfortunately it's not that you don't them to be activist, it's that you want them to be activist in your way, remember saying no is still saying something. Thing is politicians don't want to go out on a limb on a lot of these things, because if they dont want to lose the big one, the constitutional battle for real law that answers the issue once and for all. Better to keep the power than effect real change.
In a way it's good, that glacially slow incremental change, it keeps cultural fads from overtaking the preeminence of that dear old piece of paper. Would you have wanted those aliens from the fifties setting in stone how your life should be now, or those aliens from the sixties, or those aliens who call me up constantly wanting to know if they can borrow a twenty even though it's just to buy beer that they won't even share with me.
Look at how wacky things are in the West, where ballot initiatives run amok. Nerdkins passing every sort of populist law without knowing the issues in any depth. Hamstringing the politicians who are then blamed for the results of their tenure. Still you gotta admit a little hamstringing is probably good for that lot.
In any rate, dear God, are you still awake? In any rate the point is this, isn't the right to own a gun, or be protected from nutcases who want guns, isn't the right to end the life of your unborn child/fetus or the right of that child to exist, isn't the issue of who determines the value of the dollar, aren't these things and others issues that should be decided by national consensus? Aren't these issues important enough that they shouldn't change by driving over a state line? And aren't they important enough that our feelings about them should rise above cultural fads? If so then it is high time the citizens of this country took a lesson from the West and told the politicians and the courts what we as a nation believe about these issues. The dear old rag needs some updating, there is a legal process by which to accomplish that, it deserves some serious consideration