Time Constitution article, One Document Under Siege, It’s the Constitution stupid,  Tenth Amendment
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

From Time June 23, 2011.

“Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II.
DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare.
Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease.
Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics.
Lady Gaga.

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say
about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say
about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article
I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well,
since George Washington didn’t even dream that man could fly, much
less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it’s hard to
say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a
tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of
Congress’s authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James
Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then
still used leeches, it’s difficult to know what he would say. And what
would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have
fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white,
half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not
exist)? Again, hard to say.”

“Where’s the Crisis?

A new focus on the Constitution is at the center of our political
stage with the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on
the founding document. The new Republican Congress organized a reading
of all 7,200 words of an amended version of the Constitution on the
House floor to open its first session. As a counterpoint to the rise
of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should
be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal
scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they
believe the framers intended. Everywhere there seems to be debate
about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution. This is a
healthy thing. Even the framers would agree on that.”

“If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it
sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the
longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional
power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which
delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited
government indeed.”
“It is true that the framers, like Tea Partyers, feared concentrated
central power more than disorder. They were, after all,
revolutionaries. To them, an all-powerful state was a greater threat
to liberty than discord and turbulence. Jefferson, like many of the
antifederalists, did think the Constitution created too much
centralized power. Most of all, the framers created a weak Executive
because they feared kings. They created checks and balances to
neutralize any concentration of power. This often makes for disorderly
government, but it does forestall any one branch from having too much
influence. The framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is
another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the
Constitution or reinterpreting it. It was written in a spirit of
change and revolution and turbulence. It was not written in stone. Its
purpose was to create a government that could unite and lead and
govern a new nation, a nation the framers hoped would grow in size and
strength in ways they could not imagine. And it did.”

“Some opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants
are not under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children should
not automatically become citizens, but this argument doesn’t hold up
under scrutiny. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has suggested
he might offer an amendment to overturn the principle of birthright
citizenship. I’ve always thought it odd that a nation united not by
blood or religion or ethnic identity but by certain extraordinary
ideas is a nation where citizenship is conferred on the basis of where
you were physically born. It’s equally strange to me that a nation
that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by
immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally
impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for
President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)”

“The Constitution
works so well precisely because it is so opaque, so general, so open
to various interpretations. Originalists contend that the Constitution
has a clear, fixed meaning. But the framers argued vehemently about
its meaning. For them, it was a set of principles, not a code of laws.
A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light; a constitution
has broad principles that are unchanging but that must accommodate
each new generation and circumstance.”

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we
cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving
into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized
economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights. The
Constitution, as Martin Luther King Jr. said in his great speech on
the Mall, is a promissory note. That note had not been fulfilled for
African Americans. But I would say the Constitution remains a
promissory note, one in which “We the People” in each generation try
to create that more perfect union.”

Read more:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

The primary motive for this article was to make money for Time. I get that.

However, the article is so full of half truths and lies mingled with some truths, lib speak and orwellian speak, it is difficult to react to it in a rationale manner. I do not want to be the proverbial person arguing with the fool .

First, “Here are a few things the framers did not know about:”

What is their point? The founders were intimately familiar with tyranny and far more hardships that I hope that we ever know.

Second, “Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on
the founding document.”

In typical left wing fashion they insult decent Americans who uphold and defend the Constitution. Is breathing, drinking water and eating fanaticism?

Third, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it
sure doesn’t say so.” The founding fathers realized that the original Constitution focused too much power in the federal branch and added the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. The Tenth Amendment alone makes it clear that the Federal government is not all powerful.

Fourth, “is also a nation that makes it constitutionally
impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for
President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)” In typical left wing arrogant fashion, they know more than the out dated old fuddy duddies.

And lastly, my ending response to the article ending.

“A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing. Bolshevik Russia
had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany. Cuba and Libya have
constitutions. A constitution must embody something that is in the
hearts of the people. In the midst of World War II, the great judge
Learned Hand gave a speech in New York City’s Central Park that came
to be known as “The Spirit of Liberty.” It was a dark time, with
freedom and liberty under threat in Europe. Hand noted that we are
Americans by choice, not birth. That we are Americans precisely
because we seek liberty and freedom — not only freedom from oppression
but freedom of speech and belief and action. “What do we mean when we
say that first of all we seek liberty?” he asked. “I often wonder
whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon
laws and upon courts.”

If you read the above carefully, they make my point. That is, we had a upheld, intact Constitution that allowed Learned Hand to speak. Perhaps if the good citizens of Nazi Germany had rested their ” hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts” a disaster could have been avoided.

It’s the Constitution stupid!

Not a suggestion.