Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I see no greater threat to the United States than that which boils within our own border: creative interpretation of our Constitution.

I know most of you have read, many times, about how I fear our Constitution is being made irrelevant by those with an agenda and a sypathetic judiciary. The reason it troubles me so is that our Constitution has stood for longer than any other in history, and has served as the fulcrum for more changes than any other nation has experienced. This country has evolved from an agrarian society with limited manufacturing isolated in a small area to an industrialized economic powerhouse that still holds strong enough agrarian roots that we can feed ourselves easily, with more than enough to take care of dozens of other nations who can’t.

The men who wrote, debated, rewrote, and ratified this document had a wonderful understanding of human weakness, and built into the rules of government the ability to weaken any populist pressure to increase the interference of the government in our personal lives. At the same time, the document told our government, in no uncertain terms, precisely what it was allowed to do, and gave it leeway only in how to accomplish those things. It is that leeway which politicians have used to expand the authority of the federal government, and which judges have turned to advantage. We have reached the point where judges evaluate our Constitution using as example laws in other countries–countries which have never matched the US in any measure.

People speak of a “slippery slope” when discussing pieces of legislation or court rulings. I think the better metaphor is a cookie. Rather than having our society slide from its position to something less agreeable (depending on which group advocates or opposes), our society and government are weakened regardless of direction by the incessant change, even if just small nibbles from the cookie. Nibbles add up. Whether the Left takes a piece from the Right or vice versa, is irrelevant. A piece is missing.

This does not mean change is bad. Change, in my experience, is usually good. But in society, the method of achieving it determines its value more than anything else. Madison and the rest understood that. They made change difficult. They made it difficult so that any change would require a national referendum, not a simple majority. As they understood, and the French Revolution validated, controlled change is the only way to establish and maintain a unified government that serves the citizens rather than controls them. A simple majority, made up of a few vocal advocates and their sometimes bewildered followers, should not set the tone for our government. Momentum can be a very bad thing when a small group on a personal mission builds on success. It can get out of control, and guillotines get erected.

Those who regard the Constitution as a living document are correct–it is. But not in they way they want it to be. Their thought is that it is open to interpretation as befits new circumstances. The Founders saw it as a living document in that it can be changed–and it has been, many times–to better suit the environment of our nation as it grew.

An Amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to make the grade. Pretty stiff. But once it leaves DC, it needs the support of three-fourths of the state legislatures. That means neither “Jesusland” nor “Coastal Elites” can make policy to suit themselves. The cookie doesn’t crumble with change by Amendment, but is strengthened by the unity required to make it happen.

We must all remember that there are 300 million of us, each with some issue that interests us. When we join a group, whether it be a union, the NRA, or NAMBLA, we add our voice to that group’s agenda, whether we agree with all the issues that group advocates or not. And each issue has the potential to erode individual liberty because for every issue, there are those for and against.

If you happen to be the “against”, your liberty is weakened by frivolous change to satisfy the “for.”

To counter this we must get back to the amendment process for issue of import, and change in the function of government. Although I oppose an amendment to define marriage, it may be good for it to be brought forth for discussion and debate on its merits. As with the Equal Rights Amendment, it may die in statehouses, but cause society to look within and make changes.

And that, my friends, will strengthen, not weaken us.

• A Physicist’s Perspective
• Bill’s Big Bloviating Blog
• The Commons
• Ogre’s Politics and Views
• Mud and Phud
• Little Red Blog
• The Terriorists
• The Redhunter
• Never Sway
• Mad Poets Anonymous

Neal Boortz is a supporter of legalizing not only “medical marijuana,” but eliminating the drug laws completely. Today, at a time when the US Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against, Boortz was in full bloom on the issue–until one caller came along to deflate him completely.

Boortz had listened to several callers tell the tale of how great marijuana was in helping one of their loved ones deal with pain. Everyone was patting themselves on the back for how tolerant they were. Then, one man skillfully walked Boortz along the primrose path. “My concern is where will this end? Is it okay for a minor to use it?” and his questions came on along that vein. Boortz was adamant that the slippery slope the man described would never go so far as he suggested. Then the man asked, “What if my grandmother, dying of cancer, wanted to smoke cigarettes in the hospital because that made her feel better?”

Uh oh…

Boortz: “Uh, well, cigarettes are a health hazard.”

Boortz, the libertarian, would begrudge a dying woman a cigarette, but would be quite pleased if she smoked one made from marijuana.

There are far too many restaurants these days which don’t have enough seating. It pains me and causes me a great deal of mental anguish any time I go out for a meal and must wait until some inconsiderate slob decides he’s through sitting at the table impressing his party with words of wisdom. The time has come for action, but I’m not sure which route to take to eliminate this danger to mental health.

On one hand, it would be a huge improvement if restaurants simply expanded and installed more seating. The other option would be to restrict the time any group would be allowed to occupy a table. I think, perhaps, this second option is easier to implement.

What is a restaurant for, anyway? Their purpose is to serve food to hungry people. Anything other than that is beyond their mandate, and should be severely restricted by law. After all, not only is the mental health of those required to wait at risk, but their physical health as well at places without an indoor waiting area large enough to accomodate the overflow. Most folks don’t carry an umbrella to restaurants.

And people are just too stupid to deal with this on their own. I can’t even guess at the number of folks I see standing outside waiting for a table at restaurants all over town on Friday and Saturday nights. The government must get involved.

This is the attitude of people who want government to ban smoking in places like bars and restaurants. There is a movement here in my city for this very thing, and Lady Debby sees the same thing in Maine.

What right does a government have to interfere with a private business operation? The standard reply is that workers must endure second-hand smoke. So, “workplace safety” trumps all. No discussion allowed on whether those workers have any employment options.

Basically, there are two groups who advocate such restrictions: Those who think all smoking must be banned, and those who don’t want to smell smoke during a meal. The second group want to eat at their favorite places, but won’t use economic clout to change things. If you like a restaurant but they allow smoking, don’t go there. And tell the owner why you will never return. His attitude would soon change when his profits drop.

But, what if nobody else cares? What if I’m the only one to ever complain? And I really like their sushi! There isn’t any better here in town. I’d have to deprive myself of something I really like! Far better to deprive someone else.

I’ve smoked cigars for many years, but I don’t smoke indoors. It’s rude. So is using the government to force someone else to do your bidding.

You have choices. Make them yourself and don’t expect government to make them for you. You might not like the ones they make.

I use to think the ACLU was in the business of looking out for Joe Average American, acting as a watchdog over the government and its tentacles reaching ever deeper into our souls–you know, kinda like MSM.

But like any organization that has success in living up to its original charter, once its work is pretty much complete, it begins looking for other things to keep those who live off its income employed. We will never see a “non-profit organiztion” simply decide to close up shop because their work is done. They must continually look for “victims” to “help.”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That’s pretty clear, is it not? Okay, it may not be clear what “an establishment of religion” means. The precise meaning was, and is, that the Federal Government cannot establish any religion by law. Nor can Congress prohibit anyone from exercising their own religion. Less than two decades later, almost immediately after his inauguration, President Jefferson responded to a Baptist association in Connecticut whose congregation feared he would restrict them in their religious practices. He wrote to assure them he would not, and told them he felt “separation of church and state” were essential.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions

Funny that the Separation advocates ignore the last part of that sentence and often advocate hate crime legislation. If we are to take Jefferson’s words as unofficial amendment to the Constitution, perhaps we should include them all. Isn’t it also odd that Jefferson would also say (in the same letter), “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man.” Do you think he meant God?

Actually, if you want to understand the essence of the words in our Constitution and its first ten Amendments, maybe the best way is to see how James Madison, primary author of the document, first wrote it:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

Today we have the ACLU demanding the Defense Department distance itself from the Boy Scouts, and we have a teacher in California in trouble for distributing historic documents to his students. And our popular ACLU continues its assault on Christmas, with communities knuckling under in order to not have to spend exorbitant amounts of money fighting through court.

Will the ACLU come to the teacher’s defense? Isn’t the government imposing opinion?

The ACLU is also involved in trying to have a small cross removed from the Seal of the City of Los Angeles. They will prevail because the City will simply remove it rather than take the fight to court. Yet I see nothing in the First Amendment, or any other portion of the Constitution that restricts a city from having a religious symbol, or even a city ordinance requiring everyone in town to belong to a specific church. If a city council decide to force everyone to become Catholic, there is nothing in the First Amendment to prevent it.

It would be nice if everyone running for office had to pass a test on the Constitution. I would also prefer to see Justices on our Supreme Court be students of the Constitution rather than the law. Perhaps then groups like the ACLU would quit using what they see as tacit approval from the First Amendment–it only says Congress shall make no law; It says nothing restricting the courts from making those laws.