Imagine the shock to the Supreme Court justices—those staunch conservative protectors of the Constitution—when the last Republican president suggested that we abandon parts of it, especially the bits about elections. The majority of justices wants to preserve even the most outdated and patently dangerous sections in the name of strict interpretation of the founding document. That line of reasoning would still allow women to be beaten by their husbands and slaves to serve us tea.
Now, don’t misunderstand me. If a constitutional amendment (the operable phrase, constitutional amendment) made it illegal to carry and/or sell military grade weapons, I would be very happy. I’d like one that allows and encourages strict background checks and makes it illegal to carry or store an unlicensed firearm. After all, we are living in the 21st century, and we have plenty of state and national militias for the country’s defense.
Nor would I be opposed to a constitutional amendment that modifies the Electoral College. Surely, there is a way to have a popularly elected government with some checks and balances to cover mob hysteria. After all, that was the original purpose of the Electoral College.
Of course, like anything else, what seems like a great idea to one group is an anathema to another, which is why we have to be careful tinkering with the old document. A solid working definition of reasonable might be a good place to start.
Given who is making this suggestion and his preferred method for change (i.e., Trump), I guess I’m thankful for Mr. Roberts and crew—well, maybe not Justice Thomas—for being opposed and appalled.
Carole J. Garrison 