Originally Posted By: Greger
That there are arguments over the interpretation of the words in the constitution is proof enough that there is plenty of room for flexibility. When actual changes are demanded by a wide majority of voters then it is easily amended. The FFs never meant for it to be like the Ten Comandmants but for it to be a living and breathing document.

If our Constitution were meant to be a living breathing document our Founding Fathers would not have taken the time and effort to write it.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson
That is not a description of a living breathing constitution.
Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm what you would call a socialist. There's not a single item in my agenda that would conflict with the Constitution. It's a good document and it's proven to work. Our interpretations probably diverge at... "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

There they do diverge. The general Welfare clause to be interpreted as it's author, James Madison, intended it to be and this is what Madison had to say about it.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
You cannot tell me that the FFs ever envisioned worldwide military domination to be the main goal of our government, even during peacetime, to the detriment of the health, education, and employment of the general population.

**EDIT***...or maybe you can but that we argue at all simply illustrates my argument that the words are somewhat ambiguous sometimes and subject to interpretation.

That the United States is the dominant military force in the world is not something our Founding Fathers wanted. That it has happened is due to circumstances beyond the control of our government. However, because our military is as large as it is it has quite often been used to benefit the rest of the world. Our military was helping people around the world long before it became the largest one in the world.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary