making a change?

 

Popular sovereignty, meaning rule by the people. 

Republicanism, meaning the right to vote for representatives

Federalism meaning power is shared between the national and state governments
Separation of powers into branches that make, enforce or interpret laws

Balance of Power - controls (checks) can be made on the other branches

Limited government - everyone is bound by the US Constitution
Individual rights - personal freedoms are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights

 I was having a discussion yesterday involving the political landscape as it exists today. It was an even and fair back and forth. I do enjoy a discussion where there is no name calling or any of that nonsense. We certainly don't have to agree. As someone once said, I have never learned anything from anyone that agrees with me. My mind isn't changed very often however, I'll admit to that. The reason for that is usually I have reached a conclusion before entering the discussion. I have gathered some facts, listened to others' opinions and formed my own. That's how things work. You do have to decide, to pick a position to defend. 

 Now during this discussion it was suggested, to my surprise, that the constitution needed to be rewritten, changed, modified in some fashion. I was informed that in this person's opinion it was outdated and old. My position on that is, the precepts in that document are timeless. I can't see where anything should be changed. I went to google later on and compiled the list you see at the beginning of this blog. Those are the seven basic precepts of our constitution. I wonder which of those seven needs to be changed? Which one or more have become outdated? Is it rule by the people or individual rights? Could it be the balance of powers? Should we rewrite that section saying the president has the final say? Doesn't matter what congress or the senate wants, the president gets to say? Or is the Republicanism part that offends? The right to vote for your representative even when the opposing party doesn't like it? Is it that part? 

 I think what people mean when they espouse such a radical thing is who has the final say in interpretating what the constitution means. That has been a point of contention among constitutional scholars since the document was written. It is the reason for the separation of powers. In more modern times the general thinking has been the supreme court, in issuing its' opinion, has the final say. That isn't the truth in actual practice, however. There have been times in history when the office of president was thought to have the final say. That was when an "executive" decision had to be made, most notably the establishment of a national bank. But the executive branch is not the judicial branch. The judicial isn't the legislative. We the people have the final say. That's called popular sovereignty. Is that the part to be rewritten, has that become outdated? 

 In my experience those that are losing the game always want to change the rules. We have all done that at one time or another, you know, to make it fair. Do you play monopoly using all the rules, or a slightly modified version? Most recently we have males competing in women's sports. Their argument being because they identify as a female it is only fair, they compete against other females. A slight change to the rules. It's akin to saying I'm 21 years old but identify as a 16-year-old so I can play little league baseball. That's fair, right? Those that say the constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten fall in that category. They are the people that would change the document, the rules, every time the game isn't going their way. They always fall back on one argument, that's what it says but that isn't what it means. If you are confused about what the constitution means just read those seven precepts. Then decide, which one or more should be changed.