Not sure i agree with the examples here, but i wish to ask about the issue of amending the constitution...
The question i have to ask is, per whose ideals?
The ideals this country was founded on should be simple absolutes... there are no elongated parameters set to the concept of due process, free speech, freedom of religion.. these are extraordinarily simple ideals.
We have already tried over the years to interpret them to deatch and bend them to fit whoever is in power, se HR 247 as a wonderful example of how something can be interpreted in an extermely bad way and be very legal in doing so.. for those not familiar is basically can make it a crime to protest in any area where Obama is present. This is an extreme interpretation of it, but it is also not innacurate. Of course this was not panned at all on his board to the surprise of precisely noone.
What im getting at is basically who gets to make that call? 1 judge? a small group of old closed minded people in the SCOTUS? Congress in the lobbysints pockets? public referrendum? executive priviledge? All any of that does is limit something that should only be limited by common sense and responsibility.
This might be the one time in history that i would agree with the whole less is more nonsense.