Comment: Considering the timing, this

(See in situ)

Considering the timing, this

Considering the timing, this probably in response to the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

You see, contrary to popular belief, the original Constitution wasn't really about protecting your rights; it was about protecting the rights of states from the actions of the federal government. Very few individual rights are actually recognized/protected (and really, without protection, what use is a right? You don't get your rights just because you can morally "prove" you have them).

The 14th amendment raised the question about what rights are so sacred, that no government can violate it. You can side with some guys like Jack Hunter, Forrest Mcdonald or pro-South groups who believe that the 14th amendment was illegal forced upon the South as a punishment for the Civil War. You can side with guys like Thomas Woods Ron Paul who generally believe that the 14th amendment had very limited applications. Or you can side with guys like Antonin Scalia who believe that the 14th amendment was just created to ensure that former slaves/Blacks got equal protection.

At the time it was being written, there was a lot of debate over what those sacred rights were. In the end, they almost decided to just include the entire BOR (including the 2nd amendment), but it was decided to leave it more open-ended. Basically, they wanted to give Congress and the Supreme Court the ability to interfere with states who where infringing on basic rights or engaging in unequal protection under the law without requiring another amendment.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:


Specific cuts; defense spending: