Slippery slope of constitutional changes
As was pointed out in a recent letter to the Alpena News editor our union is more perfect because of amendments made to what the founders wrote. It’s important to remember that the founders also provided for a process that would keep the founding documents relevant to our society in every way for all time.
Article V of the Constitution clearly shows that the founders expected We the People to request constitutional updates. Twenty-seven times the people found it fit to amend the original documents. But the founders certainly did not plan for the original documents to slip into some willy-nilly formed variation of what they wrote. Still there are those who call our constitution a living document which, to them, really means they can haphazardly, for political purposes, make changes.
Progressives want to work within the constitution if they can but are more than willing to find a way around it when their agenda requires. An example, President Obama is considering executive action where he just uses his pen to make changes to what the Second Amendment says (remember those are the guns). Obama has also threatened to use his pen to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Another prime example is Obamacare. Legislators, against the will of the people, decided to force everyone to buy health insurance. Clearly forcing Americans to purchase anything is not a free choice and is not constitutional. Slippery political operators in Washington and a liberal court decision found a way that Americans could be forced to buy insurance.
Do these slick legislative maneuvers change the constitution? No. Do they change the law of the land? Yes. Is this what is known as the living-constitution? Yes. Are these examples of the short, slide on the slippery slope to socialism? Yes.