Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision |
| documents:answers:faq [2016/05/09 20:41] – [If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?] Oliver Wolcott | documents:answers:faq [2016/05/09 20:43] – [If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?] Oliver Wolcott |
|---|
| ===== If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution? ===== | ===== If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution? ===== |
| |
| When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though the federal violation of the Constitution is obvious to all reasonable Americans, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a convention of states will be written with such politicians in mind.([[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist85#i]|(i)]) The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be broken. | When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though the federal violation of the Constitution is obvious to all reasonable Americans, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a convention of states will be written with such politicians in mind.[[historicaldocuments:fedpapers:federalist49#i|(i)]] The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be broken. |
| |
| In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women's suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld. | In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women's suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld. |
