You can't let them interpret or dictate the meaning and intent of the constitution. Kiki is correct here. If you allow their proposals disguised as for the good of the people it will be rewritten for the select few in power. Which is exactly what the constitution was intended to prevent. and a perfect recipe for a tyrannical and totalitarian government. There'd be no due process, no first amendment effectively killing free political speech, massive regulations on guns. The property clause would be shit on even more etc. More control and eventually no freedom of the people.
Constitutional amendments cannot be voted on by a simple majority. Totalitarian govt cannot be established by definition of the Constitution. A party majority, or by the willingness of both parties, can establish laws. They can be challenged in the Supreme Court. That is why shit hasn't been done since Obama's first term. I don't see the problem here. Nothing is being violated.
maybe we are just on the wrong page. Amendments can and have defined our evolution. That is my point. And I have said the core is fundamental. It was just in reference to the comment on Duck. He is not a game changer. The other guy...
They don't just want to offer amendments to fix a given problem. They want to change the constitution structurally making it null and void.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Supreme Court,.. they protect us from totalitarianism. The Supreme Court has become politicized, compromising our protection. The original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be safeguarded above all else. In order to guard them is why I oppose gun control.
