[AF] Ha!

[Bruce Doerle]

I always thought that to change the Constitution it required that the designated process (see below) to be followed and not some "constitutional interpretation " as Sid wrote.  This is where the judges are failing us.  It is not a judge's right to re-interpret the constitution, but to make sure laws are enacted that follow the Constitution as written.
 
bcd

Article V of the Constitution ( http://usgovinfo.about.com/newsissues/usgovinfo/blconst.htm#Article5 ) spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
To Propose Amendments
Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.) 


>>> 

From: Tom Spencer <Radiofreetom at gmail.com>
Examples?

Copyright violation?

criminal enterprises?

random violence?



Sid Schweiger wrote:
> I would further suggest that, as much as some may feel this is not a good thing, constitutional interpretation must take place as society progresses.  Many (possibly most) of the situations now coming into the court systems did not exist when the Constitution was written.
What hasn't existed in some form since Cain whacked Abel?

Methods change; people haven't

-- 
Tom Spencer
PG-18-25453 (nee' P1-18-48841)
http://radioxtz.com/