46 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 29 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Is The Constitution Really That Unfair?

By       (Page 5 of 6 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   4 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Michael Bonanno
Become a Fan
  (7 fans)

Even though it doesn't take long to get to Article V, I briefly thought, as I was reading The Constitution, that perhaps "strict Constitutionalists" were leaning on the fact that there was nothing in the original ratified Constitution which permitted its amendment.  Obviously, however, Article V, indeed, does allow for amending The Constitution.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Two facts would have crossed my mind had there not been an Article V.

First, I would have found it interesting, to say the least, that the first amendment to The Constitution was incorporated in 1791, when most of those who ratified The Constitution were still alive.  Even if Article V didn't exist, it would have been obvious to the most casual of observers that those who ratified The Constitution were OK with amending it.

The second was that I would not have been able to accept that the intelligent, brilliant statesmen who wrote and ratified The Constitution would have believed that they could write such a document of laws, such a rule book, as it were, with enough clairvoyance and self-confidence to be certain that they were writing rules carved in stone for a nation which might still exist hundreds of years into the future. 

As I mentioned, I'm not yet a constitutional expert and may never become one.  I haven't even read the entire document, let alone studied its creation.  However, I'm certain that the founding fathers could only assume that the world would be changing in the future as history had taught them that existence is dynamic.  Can we really believe that these men, in writing The Constitution, were certain that what they wrote would always be appropriate and relevant and that no changes would ever be needed?  Is this what a "strict Constitutionalist" believes?

Mr. Jeffrey, Hartmann's January 11 guest, seemed to be emphatic about pointing out what is not in The Constitution.  He began more than one sentence with words that were similar to, "Nowhere in The Constitution does it say...."

The obvious question is was he referring solely to the original document that was signed and ratified or was he referring to that document plus all of the amendments that have been made to that document since its inception?

Mr. Jeffrey was adamant that The Constitution gives no right to Congress to make laws protecting the citizens of the United States other than what is stated in Article I.

Again, however, I ask, "What is the United States? (for now, The FUSA)"  It's a nation.

If there were no people inhabiting the land which is referred to as the United States, would it still be a nation?  Without inhabitants, who would defend it and, other than the natural resources and the land, what would there be to defend?  Though the natural resources are rich in this nation and the land is, for the most part, fertile and giving, are those entities the most important entities to protect today in The FUSA?

The land and the resources in The FUSA support human life and, consequently, human beings live here.  Those people, along with the land and resources, are The Former United States Of America. 

It is Congress's responsibility to provide for the "general welfare" of The FUSA, it is consequently Congress's responsibility to provide for the general welfare of what it is that comprises this nation and that is the people, the natural resources and the land upon which those people and resources reside.

Is it the word "welfare" which is in question?  Dictionary.com has a very clear definition of that word as well.

I will continue to study The Constitution of The FUSA, a document with which I should have become familiar a long time ago.  Will I truly learn that The Constitution allows the government of this nation to turn its back on those in need?

As I continue to read and study The Constitution, am I really going to learn that it boldly states that those who make the laws of this nation may not make laws which help the nation's citizens obtain and maintain life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Michael Bonanno Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Michael Bonanno is an associate editor for OpEdNews.

He is also a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Teabaggers; Children of the Sixties?

It's OK to say "Merry Christmas"

Is The Constitution Really That Unfair?

Will "Americans Elect" Their President in 2012?

Why Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism are Pipe Dreams

LA Socialist Party Local Holds Organizing Meeting (Discussion with Mimi Soltysik, Local Chair)

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend