But the supreme Court is primarily conservative and will continue to be into the foreseeable future.

Just because it wasn't written into the Constitution when we were still popping in holes in the ground doesn't mean we can't do it today. The Constitution was never meant to be "okay folks, this is it forever. Abide by this document or everyone will die horrible deaths." Case in point, one of the FIRST things the fledgling government did was change it. The times we live in now are very very different from the 1770s and the documents and our laws have changed to reflect it. The Constitution isn't the word of God.

As far as health care, the document that started it all said governments were created to protect life. What better way to protect life than ensuring all men and women who fall ill could receive medical care regardless of their status in society.

 

There will NEVER be wealth equality. So if that is the one common ingredient for a republic, then there will never be a republic. The only thing our republic should assure is equal opportunity. We've made large strides in that department since our inception, and we continue to work on it. But once we find that we can vote ourselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

 

Of course the constitution isn't the word of God! But it is written in pretty plain English. The fact that the document gives us two different ways of changing it and has been changed almost 30 times is proof that it was meant to be interpreted in the manner the founders did. And if it doesn't apply to our lives anymore, we can change it. But instead, we have liberal judges, (meaning their opinions are liberal, not that they were appointed by liberals), who make things up in their opinions, such as separate but equal, separation of church and state, right to privacy, etc.

As for healthcare and all other social programs, there is nothing wrong with them. But they either have to be taken up by states, persuade fellow citizens to amend the constitution, or ignore the document and do it anyway. We are ignoring the fact that the enumerations clause very clearly states what the federal government can pay for. The tenth amendment says that anything not in the constitution or prohibited by it, belongs to the state and the people. We are the United STATES of America, not just America. The great thing about what the founders envisioned as a weak central government and sovereign states is that if you didn't let the federal government do anything that was absolutely necessary to maintain a nation and let states deal with their own social issues, it allowed people to move freely to other states. So if you like the right to health insurance, you moved to Massachusetts or if you liked not having income tax you moved to Florida or if you liked same sex marriage you moved to Hawaii or if you like legal marijuana you moved to Colorado, if you liked favorable banking/corporate laws you incorporated in Delaware, if you liked gambling you moved to Nevada, etc. But once the federal government decides to give everyone the right to health care, marriage, income taxes (actually we did it right by ratifying the 16th amendment),you have absolutely no recourse on where to live other than leaving the country. But no, liberals would have us all forced into their idea of utopia regardless of differences in history, culture, religion, demographics, geography, resources, etc. Liberals are slowly transforming this republic into something entirely different that what was envisioned by the founders and they are doing to through liberal judges rather than by actually amending our founding document.

 

Unless it's a national security or public health issue, I don't see why the government is paying for communities to have airline service.

 

I disagree completely. The right to marry or own slaves or be able to afford a doctor should not be state dependent. The only people who really care about states rights are people who are active politically. The general public, in many occasions, only cares about President and Federal reps.

Even still, I'm 100% in favor of amending the Constitution to make state governments less powerful. I think this country is more powerful as singular and consistent body than just the sum of various states.

 

Jesus Christ with these walls of texts. (SWIDT?)

 

You don't need a constitutional amendment to make the states less powerful. Appointed liberal judges have already taken care of that. Marriage as an example, where in the constitution does it say anything about marriage? Personally, I feel that all government should just stay out of the business of marriage and just stick to civil unions. And comparing any of my multiple examples to slavery is absurd. Of course people cannot own people as property. But I'll point out that it was liberal appointed judges who gave us the Dred Scott decision, and separate but equal in another case.

Now as far as being able to afford a doctor, nowhere in the constitution does it give anybody the right to be able to afford anything. Again, if individual states want to afford certain things as states' rights, they are all able to do it, democratically with their residents' blessings. Like I said, this country is made up of people who are diverse ethnically, racially, religiously, politically, etc. Having the ability to choose the state that you want to live and still have the protections of the federal government through its enumerated powers and rights, is the best way to live in domestic tranquility. When liberals try to shoe horn everyone into what they believe what is right for them, we get the rancor and division we have now.