Evo said:
The article is mostly about politicians (and the general populace) holding completely wrong information about our country.
Our founding fathers didn't agree on the constitution, and when it's ammended, it's also not entirely agreed upon, and then it's changed, and changed again. It's not the ten commandments like some people seem to believe, IMO.
I think people get a bit confused when people talk about the Constitution being sacred or whatnot. When people say adhere to the Constitution, they mean as it is currently written. Also because of what it says and allows (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, checks and balances on the government, etc...). But of course it is changed throughout history. That's the point. The Founding Fathers made it that way. They created a very brief document that covered only the really big stuff, and left everything else up to the government, which is elected by the People. It is the job of the Supreme Court to see if legislation keeps in line with the often silent Constitution, regardless of whether they agree with the legislation or not and whether the Constitution is thought to be morally right or wrong. If a good piece of legislation is found to be un-Constitutional, then that is grounds for creating a formal amendment, not claiming that the legislation is "Constitutional" because the Court's justices want it to be. The Founders included the amendment provision so that the Constitution could be changed and adapted if required. If it is found that the Founding Fathers got something wrong with the Constitution or flat out forgot something or some part is just flat-out outdated, then there is the amendment process to change it. This also is what makes the Constitution timeless, because the Founders, in addition to making it brief, made it flexible. They knew that the world would change as the centuries went by, so they designed it where it could change.
And yes, the Founders disagreed very much on how to author the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, there were multiple plans put forth for a Constitution that would have given the federal government a massive amount of power, and very little to the states, but this was rejected (Alaxander Hamilton prosposed such a Constitution I believe). The original Constitution as written many of the founders would not even sign until the first ten amendments were added to it (Bill of Rights). Additional amendments outlawed slavery, ensured a woman's right to vote, outlawed liquor, undid the anti-liquor amendment, established the income tax, etc...The problem is that too many today (usually on the far Left) decide to interpret the Constitution as a "living document," that you interpret "according to the times" (which really means the Constitution gets to say whatever they want it to say). With judicial activism, the person's right rests with a few justices on the Court, as opposed to a formal amendment in the Constitution. It also turns the Supreme Court, which is supposed to just interpret what the Constitution is saying and then see if the legislation is in line with the Constitution, into a third legislative branch. A justice on the Court is supposed to keep their political views out of the matter.
Some people on the extreme Right do the 180 degree opposite of the far Left. Whereas the far Left often want to interpret the Constitution as a "living document," many on the Right think that if the Constitution doesn't
explicitly say something, then it is un-Constitutional. For example, you have the far-Right people who say all foreign military bases of the U.S. are un-Constitutional, that all major government agencies are un-Constitutional (FBI, CIA, NSA, FDA, DoE, etc...), the Federal Reserve is un-Constitutional, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc...are all un-Constitutional. Generally, my understanding is these are all permitted through the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause, which give the government a lot more power then one might initially think from the Constitution.
The Left tend not to like the Constitution except for a few parts of it because it was written as a document that basically says the federal government can only do this, this, and that, and otherwise cannot do much, which is a major pain to those who believe strongly in a big, powerful central government. Often there is the excuse such as, "The Founders did not know about nuclear missiles, the Internet, Facebook, germs, etc..." correct, but that's why they made the Constitution brief and amendable. The Court's job is to make sure the laws made keep in line with the Constitution and if the Constitution needs to be changed, it can be amended.
Also interesting to remember is that originally, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. It wasn't until later on via incorporation that they came to be applied to states and local governments (and only recently the 2nd Amendment I think).
