Existing Constitution Must Be Defended

To The Editor:
I found Art Hall’s article interesting regarding the apathy of those who have given up voting. I believe there is also linkage of those voters who complain that the system never changes or that the politicians do only what they want to do.
Insofar as the Constitution being questioned as a living document and possibly outdated and requires modernization, some in New York state are requesting shahira law be included to existing statutes. In my opinion, that suggestion validates why the existing Constitution must be defended. The president of the U. S., a constitutional lawyer and former professor, formally professed that our Constitution contains only negative liberties, and should be modernized.
Of all the issues in the last 50 years, healthcare represented the pinnacle of voter outrage. Considering that, many politicians attempted to massage the outrage with Town Hall-type meetings. The outrage of the people escalated up to the Congressional approval. Forcing the issue, the politicians explained that based on their Cost Benefit Analysis they knew better than the people, that costs of healthcare would be reduced, many without (estimated at 30 million) would have coverage. In less than four months the projected costs would increase from $970 billion to an estimated $1.3 trillion. Those with healthcare plans would pay approximately 7 percent more within the year.
Immigration “reform” is another political joke. The media and politicians continually express that the U. S. policy needs reform, really. For the last 65 years, the U. S. has had temporary work permits, inclusive are manual labor to specialized scientific needs. Bending the 14th Amendment of the Constitution for non-citizens can be amended if two-thirds of the states approve. To suggest that a visitor, a diplomat, or an illegal can assume citizenship that was incorporated in the 14th Amendment for American Indians and children of slaves.
The proposal that unelected judges should decide changes to established liberties without checks and balances and a political party that is in power. To certify an example that such a proposal is ludicrous, in 1993, the court applied the Abbott rule. School funding increased $1.5 billion to 31 school districts of the 600-plus districts. The rationale that additional spending would increase the achievement levels of those students in poor districts. As of the last study completed in 2007, those students achieved a lower achievement level.
When the Constitution is challenged, why is it that in most cases the Supreme Court ruling is 5–4. Why is it that an explanation is never provided since the judges are reading the same challenge? In most cases, the rulings are justified whether the issue is conservative or liberal. Judges mandating which school district will be taxed higher and providing over a billion dollars to lesser achievement districts that 14 years later have lower achievement levels than the national average. You may ask where the citizen recourse is. Judicial appointments are based on an ideological position.
The preamble of the Constitution begins with “We the people,” followed by the Bill of Rights. My interpretation, pulling the voting lever does not eliminate, but affirms the people’s obligation to remain a part of the government. Never calling or writing your representatives is a blanket agreement that you approve of all their decisions. To date you can reason that is why the people now question the trillions in bailouts and why there is unsustainable debt and spending.
AL CROSSEN
North Wildwood