Oh yeah!

Amen brother on the hammers. You remembered my old post!

Hello victoriaz,
The principles are sound and timeless. The founders did not believe technology would remain static. All of history refutes such a premise. If it needs revising with the times that is what the amendment process is for. Surely if it truly needs adjusting that process will bear fruit. The slippery slope is not original intent, it is diverging from same. How do you suppose we got here?

The colonists had cannons. They had the most sophisticated weapons of the times. They did not kill each other any more than we do now. The equivalent of a musket today would be an M4A1 carbine that shoots fully automatic 5.56x45mm NATO with a 30 round magazine. AK-47s that are fully-automatic are illegal without special licensing. They are therefore no different than any other semi- auto hunting or sporting rifle.

Look, dead is dead, and hammers kill more people than rifles every year. Killers are the problem, part of the human condition. They have been and always will be. Now do you want to be at their mercy or do you wish to meet force with force?

I would write more but Eudaimonia and khalling have already addressed several of your assertions.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Add CT to that list.

The Constitution cannot be a "living document" if you expect us to have a nation we can securely live in and pass onto our children.
Do you think it's a good idea to build a house on shifting sand? Why? Just because sand is a "living, changeable" thing doesn't mean there's no security in building on it right?

The Founders of this nation fully understood Human Nature after studying all the previous empires for most of their lives. They understood that Human Nature defaults to tyranny if left unchecked. Why do you think they created a Republic and NOT a democracy? Because democracy ALWAYS ends in the same way: chaos and tyranny. Shortly after the Greeks came up with 1 vote per person, the fraudsters started scheming And over time, the democracy broke down. Why? Human nature.

The Constitution can be amended and individual states can "experiment" with other forms of government, IF the People choose to. And based on the outcome, if the people don't like the results, they can go back to the way government was prior to any experiment. One of the Founder said this, apologies I don't recall at this time who said it.

Look around you, CA, MI, IL, & NY have been "experimenting" with Socialism and guess what? It doesn't work. And when the stupid politicians refuse to listen to their constituency, the people will vote with their feet. Why do you think people flock to conservative states?

Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

All bills appropriating money shall specify in federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Did you know both of those come word for word from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America? The first would prevent 'pork' being added to a bill that cannot stand on its own and the second would prevent 'cost overruns' by a 'low bidder' who knew they would not be able to meet their bid price and could squeeze out extra money later.

The right to not have to support programs I do not agree with. I suggest that whatever the current tax structure all people would still have to pay their taxes but would be able to direct their portion to fund only those government activities they deem aproprait.

Agreed.
Science, to its detriment, is politicized as well.

The Gulch would need a good out-of-Obamacare-network doctor...

"He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade...."
end of Atlas Shrugged
THIS exclusion is one of the main flaws in the Constitution

Are you Ben Carson?

The founding fathers spent a great deal of time studying the pro and cons of each form of government since the beginning of recorded civilization.. The book that best describes their process and intent is "Five Thousand Year Leap." After reading this book and the Federalists Papers I suspect George, James, Ben and the boys wouldn't recognize our government today. We are way past its original intent. The question is "can we go back?" Perhpas in the Gulch but nowhere else.

state wants to pass a law that Christians can't vote.
Must limit state and local govts as well.

yea, but who has the right to bring it?

"Living and Breathing" is also a specious argument.

A Constitution is a social contract and no contract is "living and breathing."

Is your mortgage "living and breathing"?

As I stated in another post as a suggested amendment:
"As languages are living and breathing, and contracts are not, this Constitution shall be interpreted with its original intent, and not with any passing trend or use of language or rhetoric."

The People may demand at any time a public vote of confidence of any elected or appointed official. On a super-majority (2/3) result of "no confidence", Congress must immediately begin Impeachment Hearings of that official.

Representatives of The States (Senators) must not be elected or appointed by popular vote. (Repeal of the 17th Amendment).

In all cases in which a free market (private) and a government (public) solution exists, the government *must* defer the the free market solution.

"all representatives shall sign an affidavit stating they have read and fully understand any law in which they are casting a vote. Punishable as treason and perjury."

Not a huge difference at all, rather it is a specious argument.

The Founders also did not have the Internet, so, by your logic, Freedom of The Press only adheres to The Printing Press.

You are conflating, perhaps purposefully, the *letter* of the law and the *intention* of the law.

The *intention* of the Second Amendment was that the people not be infringed from being armed in a manner relative to a soldier in a standing army.

By that *intention*, AK47's and AR15's are *consistent* with original intent.

I find "living, breathing document" malleable. there of course were some compromises when framing the Constitution, and most in here are well-read on issues regarding this. "original intent" when used by most Constitutionalists, lie in laying out natural rights and their protections. sophistications in weaponry are smaller incrementally compared to world govt alliances, military weaponry and equipment compared to the time when the Constitution was written. Where are your concerns regarding that? does a "living breathing document" mold around rounding up japanese americans, taking their property and putting them in concentration camps? The Constitution does not allow for that. It was ignored. I'd rather there were clear lines drawn between the actions of the US at any time and how far we would be moving away or toward the "intent of the framers" I don't want a Constitution that may "allow" and a government saying don't worry, that's not our "intent"

Hmmm. Yes, intriguing indeed.

Funny thing is that in liberal MA the state income tax is a flat 6.25%.

If we but honor and remain true to the 10th Amendment - - -

'Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

- - then no new amendments are required!

I agree. Deregulation would also go a long way to fix this problem, but then you also have to deal with tax favors, government contracts as well. That's what drives the lobbyists.