Buckwheat wrote:I understand that your point is that we should be tough on repeat offenders but It looks like you don't believe in the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments to the constitution? I guess it's OK to just throw out any parts of the constitution/bill of rights that are "troublesome". I don't believe that you can call yourself a Constitutional conservative and not accept all of the articles and amendments to the constitution.
I also
know that the constitution is and has always been open to modernization and interpretation (as is built into the constitution in
Article V)
JMO
I do accept all parts of the constitution. I believe that the constitution of the United States only applies to citizens of the United States. People that are not citizens that enter the United States illegally are invaders or maybe even insurgents and should be treated as such. The constitution of the United States does not apply to them.
Article V provides for amending the constitution. I failed to look at amending the constitution as modernizing it, though I guess that is what is being done when it is amended. I always looked at amending the constitution as a way of addressing an issue that did not exist when it was written, which is another way of saying modernizing it, so you are correct.
I was referring more to the quibbling over trying to redefine what words mean to try to twist what was written by the authors to make the parts of the constitution mean something different than what was intended.
J