Panel four (on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.)

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Original Passage:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

– to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

READ IT AGAIN & AGAIN & UNTIL YOU GRASP THE TRUTH IN WHAT HE SAID!!!

Pictured: Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., courtesy National Park Service

Someone mentioned Edith Hamilton's statement in SPOKESMEN FOR GOD which implies that "intellectual certainty is the end of knowledge". That profound statement applies, it seems to me, to anyone who is caught up in rigid and unyielding ideological dogma and doctrine on either side(s) of an issue to the point where he or she no longer feels compelled to contemplate further interpretations. Hamilton's statement cuts both ways in that it hits liberals, conservative, pragmatists, reactionaries and radicals with its brilliant blade…equally!

Knowledge is, as is the universe, in constant flux and dynamic change; so is the Constitution…as intended by the FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION AND THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. That is why they provided for amending the Constitution and for "Judicial Review" among other means by which to allow the Constitution to attend to changes of circumstances of society. Thank God and the Founders that we have mechanisms available in the Constitution to interpret and allow the application the provisions of the constitution in the context of real time.

The point is that the writer of the above article does not interpret the Constitution for us–unless he/she is on the Supreme Court. Neither do any of us–unless we are on the Supreme Court–interpret it for him. That is a task left to the Supreme Court as it is made at a given time. The writer can opine as to the interpretations made by the congress and the courts but that is all he/she can do…thankfully!

Our government has become an indefinite one, under the progressive view, entitled to develop all and any number of programs for the "General Welfare" by fiat, "subject to particular exceptions."

This doesn't change the fact that our government was meant to be limited and federal in nature, with the States holding most of the authority. I accept the argument that government must be able to change over time, but major changes in the central U.S. government should have come legally through the Amendment process. Most of the programs/edicts handed down from the U.S. government in the last several decades has been done with great political expediency. Anything done with political expediency generally does not involve prudence in governance. I am guessing there was likely very little national debate on SS or Medicare that affected the decisions of Congress generally, not that I would know. I was born in 1987.

Agencies like the FDA, the FCC, the FBI… There are merits to these agencies and the regulations and laws they enforce, but we have over 1000 different Federal-level agencies regulating all different sectors of our economy and our lives. The good Lord knows what those who founded our government would think about said government presently, but all we have in references are now over 200 years old. We're still stuck with the age-old question of "What is best for today?"

I have a little insight for what definitely isn't "good" policy. Continually running up the debt and not "reforming(see REFORM versus CHANGE)" the spending programs, specifically Medicare, SS, and Medicaid that are pushing larger budgets and pushing us further towards insolvency as a nation. We continue to add more entitlements and higher taxes, but many of these programs don't have set budgets.

The more centralized that government is, the less effective it becomes. The U.S. government cannot possibly know what is best for citizens in Nowhere, Kansas, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and , Wyoming. It simply cannot, with many one-size-fits-all programs, best serve the needs of the constituencies of all 50 States.

No reasonable person should say that programs like SS and Medicare can't or should not exist in one form or another, but establishing them at the federal level was and continues to be debatable on whether or not they truly serve the "General Welfare" of the entire nation suitably.

Establishing everything authoritarian style top-down from the level of the federal government completely destroys the concept of federalism. When the U.S. issues a governmental mandate, everyone in the U.S. must comply. When a State issues a mandate, only the citizens of that State are affected. When a locality/town/city issues a mandate, only the individuals residing within that locality are affected. When the U.S. government is no longer truly limited in scope, its abuses(policies) affect the whole polity of the States, regardless of whether or not one may agree with said abuses(policies).

For example, I'm not particularly thrilled that the U.S. government will in the next several years have the gumption to tell me I must purchase government-approved health care insurance against my will or be fined. If Oklahoma was considering such a mandate, and Kansas was not, I could vote with my feet and move to Kansas, or any other State that supports my more conservative ideals of how government should handle the regulation of health care in this country.

With the U.S. government, I do not have that option. In order to "escape" such a mandate, I'd have to leave the country; There aren't many countries that haven't imposed some sort of social universal health care plan where I would enjoy living.

The argument about imposing one's "Ideals" on another person goes both ways, and the U.S. government is a great vehicle for imposing misery upon the citizens of the United States. Just because I support a more limited, narrowly Constitutional government doesn't mean you wouldn't have the right to live in a State or locality where your ideals of government could be in full force.

Also, I suggest taking a look at different cities where liberal Democrats have been governing for decades. I suggest Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Detroit. Have a nice day.

I for the life of me could not understand when this was being argued on television or radio for that matter, how the commerce clause was applicable to this bill and now law.

It is my hope that this bill/law will now be struck down as being unconstitutional and that it will bar this type of action by a congress that no longer listens to the people but passes laws at will, despite the objections of the people that have sent them there as representatives. I have email all of my friends and associates and have directed them to this site to learn more about this debate and also about the Constitution. Thank you.