Whether you agree with everything printed, talked about, written about etc., the right to do so should always be protected. I don't agree with pornography being promoted the way it is, but I defend the right for them to do so. I believe in God, but I agree with the constitution on seperation of church and state--so keep prayer out of schools and the ten commandments out of the courthouse. Sometimes you may not like what is done under the umbrella of constitutional rights, but be happy you have the right to do as you like and oppose what you like. It's called FREEDOM.

Ron Paul can fight for our rights.He is for our rights and OUR CONSTITUTION.

How can you support the Constitution when there is a whole new generation of Americans who believe the Constitution is a starship in a TV series. Incidentally, I was born and raised in Romania under the communist regime, and I never even knew the country had a constitution until I defected. The reason, of course, was that the regime didn't want its own citizens to know what it contained, because most of it was guaranteeing freedom and civil liberties that were contradictory to the practice of the tyranny. I believe that in America the tendency is the same: the less the citizens know about their own constitution, the easier becomes to forcibly manipulate and brainwash them. And we are getting to the point of "either use it or lose it". It's up to us.

This is not one definition of patriotism; it is THE definition of patriotism. It's a shame that, for many of our elected officials, this document is as archaic as the quill pens with which it was written.

We should always be diligent regarding the Constitution and work collectively if change is to be made. Easier said than done, given the fact that some pols and groups like to put their own interpretation on it.

Update: Great post Stark, and right on target. In this particular case I haven't earned the right to give you a helpful. I have not read the entire Constitution, just bits and pieces through the years. Your post was like holding a mirror to my face. It was convicting. Thank you!

The constitution, and the institutions in establishes, are all that separate us from totalitarianism. I hope that our troops understand what the oath they swear means.

The US constitution is the template for those of countries the world over. Liberal democracy looks to our one peice of parchment that laid out the basic criteria of the guarantee of human dignity and protection. The constitution is a kind of dampener against the extreme of decision making, whether collective or done by one person. Today, most monarchies, and all of them in Europe operate under a constitution, and if you read them, they are strikingly similar to our own, with the exception that they allow for the head of a dynasty to have office as monarch. In Europe there is a powerful watch dog call the 'Venice Commison' that adds it's heeded commentary to any laws and to new constitutions within the EU system and beyond. This is the action of a mega body presiding over sovereign nations. How do people feel about that sort of thing? I'm all about constitutional democracy, but am squimmish about the Venice Commision. If one wishes to find out more about this mega body, look it up on the net - they have their own very informative website where one can view the commentaries on constitutions and laws of nations.

As far as I'm concerned,the Constitution is far more "sacred" than our Flag.Without the Constitution that guarantees our "inalienable rights" as Americans,the Flag is no more than a colored piece of cloth.It is interesting that so many of the same folks who go into conniptions at the thought of someone "desecrating" a SYMBOL (the flag) remain perfectly docile when our own elected officials take it upon themselves to butcher the very document that is the heart and soul of our country.I guess they would wave the flag even as we loose the rights that our forefathers fought aned died for.I would remind readers that people in the US military have sworn under oath to uphold our constitution,and failing to do so is treason.

If you swear to uphold The Constitution, as every president does, then make a career of circumventing it by holding secret courts and unauthorized wire taps, shouldn't you be tried for treason?

I think the government is

The Constitiution is a byproduct of some the worlds greatest thinkers, and Liberalism is end of all thinking.

I never cease to be amazed with the level of ignorance I stumble over on this website from day to day- puerile drivel of magnificent historical distortion. Case in point: dpostoskie a serial offender. Times change, look at our current state of affairs: A government of the elite, not the people, certainly not you and I. Is this scholar saying times change and we shouldn't support the Constitution in favor of some evolving standard? Or is this some naive non-sequitur? The position contradicts itself- today we have a government of the elite. As to say we didn't in the past because now the governing people do what ever they want. But these were NON-elitists who used woman as objects, owned people and exterminated the original people of this land who presumably created a nation that was run more by the people at its epoch? This has to be some of the most discursive rubbish I've ever read on RIA and that's saying something! It's as if he cut and pasted his favorite cliches into a paragraph with no regard for whether they logically made sense in cohesion. In reality this country was founded by elites. Even republicans like Jefferson, Henry and Madison were aristocracy. And the Federalists were avid defenders of the aristocracy and overtly opposed to dirty democracy save for election day. The people today are more directly involved in an explicit manner in the election process than ever before. We now elect our senators, the electoral college is a rubber stamp, and local party officials have less control now that at the inception of our nation. But he continues with this mindless tripe, our freedom as the common everyday person is closing in on extinction. Well how is freedom closing if unlike before women can now vote and are no longer being used as objects- same with all blacks, catholics- and people are no longer being robbed of their land? Lucky our governing people (doesn't that sound like some second grader wrote it...LOL No Billy our governing people do whatever they want now we no longer have elections...too funny but I digress) don't want to use women as objects anymore, or own people considering now they do whatever they want. And back when they didn't want to... I guess the people- the non-elitists who ran government- did? This post was literally a composite of liberal connect the dot debating in full bloom- too bad the dots are too close together for anyone to forgive the stupidity. As for the Constitution being undermined- yes it is. Unfortunatley the 14th Amendment has become an empty vessel through which liberal ideologues have poured their personal philosophy at the expense of democracy itself- literally canniblizing the essence of the document. The systemic weakness that left the judicial branch unchecked was a naive reliance on the impeachment process as a veto mechanism. This, as Robert Yates noted writing as Brutus in the Anit-Federalist #11, left the judiciary free to fill voids of wanting power, bringing the authority of the system home through the judiciary. Hamilton dismissed this in Federalist #81 naively noting the judiciary held no purse nor sword...only judgement submitting the notion that impeachment would work as a veto on judicial decisions. Unfortunately much of what was conceived to check the judiciary has been rendered dead: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution specifically authorizes congress with the ability to limit through the exceptions clause everything that is not of original intent from the reveiw of the judiciary. Assuming our founding document is the core of who we are as a nation, and assuming it embodies those principles that make us free, grants us the universal right to human liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one would have to conclude that those who wish to undermine its intent are in essence anti-American, unpatriotic and enemies of our way of life (even though many are ignorant of it). Ironically these people exercise liberty derived from our bedrock principles and embodied in our founding document while arguing to dissolve its existence- and simultaneously arguing that we are no longer in control of our government for exactly the wrong reasons.*****Update, Magellan maybe if you were going to cry in your milk for the like-minded you should first do a better job representing my positions. I thoroughly agree with Thomas'(and not Scalia's) recent decision in the marijuana case and the winery decision earlier this year (noted on my post of Thomas... maybe you should read it before misrepresenting me in the future) primarily because Thomas defended federalism and the principles of republicanism. If your position were to be tenable why is it I have never argued the unborn have a right to life under the rights and privileges clause of the 14th Amendment? Seems contrary to claim I understand the difference between ideological issues and process, defending them each in proper context.

Yes, but 'supporting the Constitution' and wrapping yourself in the flag isn't always the best form of patriotism. True patriots have stood against things that the 'law' deemed inappropriate at the time.

Despite the knee jerk conclusions of the nasty and brutish post below, this is no black and white issue. One person's defense of the Constitution might be another's attack on it. For example, the recent Supreme Court decision to allow the Federal Government to continue to interfere in cancer patients' use under doctors orders of marijuana even while permitted by State Law, is clearly (many would say) an attack on the constitution. As the Economist said Did the Founding Fathers really intend to regulate the local cultivation of a crop that is neither bought nor sold? Especially under the Interstate commerce provision of the Constitution? Clarence Thomas says in the dissent that this decision paves the way for the federal government to regulate stuff like quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers. If that's not undermining the Federalist principles of the Constitution, I don't know whatis. So why no bluster from the folks like Lance on this subject? Because this decision supports the socially conservative policies of GWB, Lance could give a rats ass about the Constitution. What Lance cares about is the advancement of his socially conservative agenda. Period. So dpostoskie, be not bullied by the calls of antiamericanism! from this so called defender of the Constitution. He defends the Constitution when it suits his partisan agenda.

Times change, look at our current state of affairs: A government of the elite, not the people, certainly not you and I. We have taken the role of employee in the largest corporation in the world. Yes, we should have the right to own weapons and speak freely. Our freedom as the common everyday person is closing in on extinction. But honestly, should we be surprised? This USA was founded by people who escaped from religious persecution only to exterminate the original people of this land. They owned people and considered women as useful objects. Now, our governing people do what ever they want. So, our constitution, what does that even mean in todays world??

The defacto way of being patriotic - protecting the very document that allows this country to be as great as it is (or should be.)

i wouldn't wipe my ass with this piece of wrinkled parchment.

Patriotism involves love and devotion to your country as a whole. Generally, it also entails respect for generations past who helped provide the freedoms we so cherish. Consequently, I see a disconnect if an American claims to have patriotic ideals yet take aspects of the U.S. Constitution very lightly.

This is of course important. But its power and guidance only goes so far as the citizenry is willing to protect it. When America's citizens give too much credit to the polticians then we allow them to start to encroach on the Constitution. After all its what keeps them and their bureaucracies in check. The Judicial Branch is probably one of the most important to this effect. What some misguided hacks who listen to way to much right-wing media call Activist Judges are actually an essential part to maintain the integrity of the Consitution. There is no capability for judges to make laws Sundiszno. Furthermore the statment Activist judges who want to make laws rather then interpret it is not only alarmist it's paranoid and misinformed. The ability of judges to throw out or eliminate certain parts is integral to the Constitution. It ensures that the legislature cannot pass and the President cannot enforce laws that are in conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The federal judges of America are appointed not elected, which means that their job security is not effected by the whimsical nature of public will. They serve to protect the Constitution from both the other branches of government and the people themselves. And though Mr. Political doesn't recognize it Chauncey actually made a good point about positions against gun control. The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Now this could mean anything: tanks, bombs, missles, etc. So being against gun control on the basis that the second amendment supports it means that one would have to believe that there should be no restrictions upon this right regardless of the person, context or type of weapon. This logically follows from any argument using the Constitution guarantee as its basis. The argument is 1. Abridging Constitutional rights is wrong 2. The second ammendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms 3. Guns qualify as arms 4. Therefore the constitution guarantess the right to have guns and abridging on that right is wrong. This is a solidly logical belief. The problem is that it also allows for any other arms to be put in place of guns. Very few people believe it would be acceptable to have accessible WMD's for private ownership. WMD's are of course arms, so anyone espousing such devotion to constitutional integrity would have to believe WMD's should be legal. Anyone who favors a ban on household WMD's would have to accept that the premise Abridging Constitutional guarantees is wrong is untrue, since a ban on WMD's would clearly be a instance of restricting a Constitutional guarantee. So how can one who does believe in such bans support gun rights on the basis of a Constitutional guarantee? It is completely arbitrary to pick one point along the spectrum of arms from hydrogen bombs to very pointy sticks and say not there...not there...but here! Here is where our second ammendment needs to be protected! I realize this is rant, and I'm not saying that this is the sole argument of gun rights activists, but it pisses me off when people use arguments that are inherently flawed because they contradict other beliefs that the person has merely to attempt to make people think that gun laws are some insidious threat upon our nation. We have all sorts of common sense restrictions on personal ownership, use, and possession outside of the home of weapons. How people can use the Constitution to defend legislation prohibiting ownership of bazookas while also defending the right to own hand cannons is an absurdity that I'll never understand. If your against gun control because it restricts the second ammendment then you have to be against restrictions against the secong ammendment in general. If your in favor of some restrictions against the second ammendment then you are obviously not against restrictions against the second ammendment and its disingenuous to argue from that point. I'm done.

Of course. But keep in mind that you can't run a goverment effectively simply by applying a part of the constitution as the rule to ALL scenarios. For example, Chauncey tried to discredit the case for 2nd amendment rights by attempting to say that violent criminals should keep and bear arms. In this case, if a person has been convicted of a violent crime, of course they shouldn't have a gun, or at least untill that person can prove that he or she is capable of bearing arms in a responsible fashion.

First and foremost, obviously.

Somehow or other, through the centuries, Americans have managed to stay pretty true to the Constitution. Perhaps I'm a bit alarmist, but some of the trends I see these days cause me some concern, i.e., activist judges who want to make law rather than interpret it, and distortion or misrepresentation of some portions of the Constitution, constantly repeated, to the point that they become accepted as fact - I'm thinking of the separation of church and state issue, specifically. The Constitution does not mandate a separation of church and state - anyone who has followed this issue knows just how this whole thing got started, but the left-wingers have repeated it so often that it's tough to get people to take an objective look at it. It is disgusting to see how words (and a concept) that are not in the Constitution have somehow or other been attributed to it. Definitely support the Constitution as it was written, and keep it from being undermined by slick hucksters who reinvent or interpret it for their own reasons.

We all see the undermining of the constitution through our own, unique ideological prism. Liberals see an effort at amending the Constitution to delineate marriage as between one man and one woman as undermining its sanctity and integrity. It's really not addressed anywhere in the US Constitution, therefore it is an issue for each individual state to determine. But read, verbatim, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, and tell me again how gun control makes any constitutional sense. It's all a matter of whose ideological ox is being gored, and whose rights are being trampled. Don't even get me going on the right to an abortion being constitutionally guaranteed. Get out your magnifying glasses, everyone, let's organize a search party. What patriotism Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun showed. Thank you, Richard Nixon.

Chauncy!!!! My guns keep the knuckleheads at bay which is where I like them. Convicted felons aren't allowed to own firearms, and criminals buy them blackmarket. No legislation against the firearm will work. Keep my constitution the way it is.

It brought me so much hope to read the Constitution, and made me even more sad to know that our own President is doing a lot to undermine it. The Constitution, born from the 18th century European Enlightenment, was truly ahead of its time, and now we're regressing. This document must not be taken for granted. It is the principles on which our country was founded, and to support it is patriotic.

What a wonderful document. If you ever get the chance, go see it in Washington. It is incredible that 18th century men created such an enlightened document, able to adjust to modern life. We must spare no expense in keeping loonies like Bush from taking the rights guaranteed in it.

Fortunately the Constitution is a fairly robust document, and it's not all that easy to change (which is good). Recent attempts to change it have generally been foolish, ideology-driven nonsense (remember the anti-flag-burning amendment?) It is interesting though that the best part, the Bill of Rights, are actually amendments.