
We’ve heard a lot lately about the Constitution, particularly the 2nd, 14th and 25th Amendments, and the Bill of Rights. Most of us don’t have a clue what those amendments mean, and I’m here to help. (I’m not a Constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV, but I do know a few things on the topic, and I’d like to share them with you. But I digress.)
The Bill of Rights
After the Constitution was written, it became apparent that it didn’t cover everything that needed to be covered. There were disagreements over ratifying (the states agreeing to) the whole Constitution, so “amendments” were needed. (There were originally 12 amendments, but they were pared down to ten. These were considered “natural rights” that the government could not take away from the people.
(Nonetheless, the Powers That Be have been chipping away at the Bill of Rights. The right to freedom of speech and the right of free assembly have been nibbled away at by the courts. For example, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is not a protected right. And the freedom of the press doesn’t mean that you can publish anything you want. It just means that the government can’t censor or suppress your writing before it’s published. Nor does a publishing company have to publish it. You can still privately publish or say anything you want, but no one else has to publish it or agree with it. You have not been cancelled. But I digress again, at length.)
The 2nd Amendment
The 2nd amendment is under fire as well. Most people know it as the right to own guns. However, it says that a “well-regulated militia” is necessary for the protection of the country. (Unfortunately, most people who form “militias” are not well-regulated or even regulated at all. Nowadays, it generally refers to the National Guard. But I digress.) I have opinions about non-militia citizens owning guns, primarily that they should be licensed after proof of instruction on how to use them safely. I will not argue this point at this time and in this place. So don’t push me.
The 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment is now controversial, as well. It covers what is called “birthright citizenship.” This means that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen. It sounds pretty simple, but there you have it. Some politicians and citizens feel it’s no longer needed (or maybe no longer relevant.)
I avoided an ugly argument with my brother-in-law recently by stressing that it didn’t matter what the original intent of the founders was or why it should or should not still apply (though I have opinions on those questions). I argued that those considerations don’t matter, but that if you wanted to get rid of the Amendment, there’s a process you have to go through. It involves getting both houses of Congress to agree (good luck) or two-thirds of the states to agree (also good luck). The point is that this takes a lot of time, debate, and argument. My point to my brother-in-law was that, if you wanted to get rid of the 14th Amendment, there’s a process you have to go through, and it takes a lot of time and relies on a lot of people agreeing to it. You can’t just say, “I don’t like it. Make it go away.” The only Amendment that’s ever been repealed was the one to make Prohibition go away.
(Anyway, the repeal process is also true if you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. But I digress still more.)
The 25th Amendment
The 25th Amendment concerns getting rid of the president. It says that if the president is no longer able to fulfill his duties, there is a process to ensure succession. First, the vice-president takes the reins. If he’s not able either, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is next. If he’s also not able, the Speaker of the House steps in. Changing that is another process that can be long and drawn-out. It doesn’t involve simply holding a new election. It’s usually used only when the president or vice-president is under anesthesia for an operation.
The Amendments to the Constitution were difficult to add and are difficult to get rid of. My point is that when the American public changes its mind, it’s purposely not easy to change our fundamental documents. (And I’m sure if I got any of this wrong, hordes of constitutional scholars and maybe my brother-in-law will descend on me. But I digress even more.)
(Yeah, I know this isn’t funny, but I warned you in the subhead that there would be rants. Now that I have this out of my system, I’ll try to be amusing next week.)









