Or are you parroting some lefty blogs seemingly clever gotcha question? Yeah, it's clear that you are.
No additional amendment is necessary. What is necessary is for the executive and legislative branches not to subordinate themselves to the judiciary. Why do you blindly support court decisions?
Like Kelo for example...the Constitution is very clear in the Takings Clause, yet, the Court found that government could take property not just for public use but for private use, too. No problem with that?
What difference does the age of the document make, anyway? Has human nature changed in the past 200 years? Has individual liberty, choice, and responsibility become bad in the past 200 years? Constitutionally restrained government and decentralized power structures have become outmoded in the past 200 years?
What, exactly, is your argument here, besides the Constitution is old?
Do you know what "hypocrisy" is? If you truly believe in the value of the Constitution, then stop bitching and get a Constitutional Amendment passed.
What should the Amendment say!? "Adhere to the Constitution" or something similar?
That's not how the current system works. Is it? The current system is your basic steal from the rich and give to the poor kinda set up. Which is why, "general welfare", in no way means that I should have to bust my ass, then have most of my money taken away to give to some buncha deadbeats that are too stupid, or too lazy to make it on their own.
Wow, you read all that into, "Thomas Paine was the first to suggest a welfare entitlement program."?I've read it, yes. I don't see where Thomas Paine advocates for a Federal income tax used to fund massive expansions of centralized authority and Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy. Could you show me specifically where he supported such measures? I can't find it...
Last edited by CriticalThought; 04-11-10 at 01:46 PM.