jpete wrote:The Constitution was written for the PEOPLE. As such, I'm perfectly qualified to "interpret" the Constitution.
Then why do most of us dispute your qualifications? You had me fooled for a while too. Blue collar, no scholar.
Obama studied the constitution to help him destroy it. Seems to me the constitution is a very positive document. We all know what congress' approval rating is. It's frustrating.
The libs are all gathering the firewood of Romney is a flip-flopper wahhhh. But it's wet firewood and it won't light.
It's flaming if half the country knows and is concerned about Romney's flip/floppping.
I don't understand why you think it's ok, or Lib wining, that Romney has flop/flopped on so many importent positions? Either you feel like he didn't and they are mis-informed, or he did but that's ok with you?
If so, that's not very leader like and shows weak indecision at it's very least Dann, and at it's worst, Romney will do anything, say anything depending on who he's talking to, to get a vote.
It's looks to me like you love the Constitution. I applaud you for that, but (IMO) it's become a bit like a Bible. If you "interpret" it literally, then Jeff is right about the standing Army etc... If not and you decide to interpret it for modern times as Fred mentioned, then it becomes a slippery slope argument that is open to the same scutiny/interpretations that differing sects of Christianity apply to the Bible to suit their cause.