[Lord T Hawkeye]

I can contribute politely and meaningfully

Now if you'll come off your childish, hypocritical screaming

Have I told you that I hate liars? Well I do.

I point to an argument, share what is wrong with it and defend the assertion

And throw in some self congratulatory drivel and spew insults to build yourself up but hey, let's not worry about minor details.

That's all well and good, but the problem is what the Constitution actually permits. A great deal of Constitutional law is and always has been whether or not an issue not directly addressed by Constitution is implied, inferred, or ought to be addressed. Even the men who drafted the document argued over what it actually meant after the ratification, and immediately felt it necessary propose 12 amendments to specifically limit and define the government and bring forth arguments for the role of the new government. This is the greatness of the Constitution that is so often touted as a living document. Knowing that no framework is perfect or timeless, it was given mechanisms to adapt to new social and economic ideals, new responsibilities or limits or government, or new technologies and ideas through amendment or establishment of legal precedents based on the standing document.

No shit! Stop trying to build strawmen. The amendment process is part of the constitution too. The whole point is that the rules can be changed if the times demand it but it should not be something done lightly. In other words, if something does need to be changed, then go through the proper process. Don't just break rules because you don't like them and that's what governments get away with too often. THAT is what I have a problem with. The fact that you jump to this conclusion says to me that you want to see a loon and nothing more so don't try and tell me that you're all fair minded because you're not convincing me of that with your actions here.

The problem with the Libertarian idea is that it is so very uncompromising and literal, that it refuses to accept that there is grounds for interpreting intent and applying it to a modern context and probably stands in opposition, just as well, to changing a document that they revere. However, given the early context of dissent to the Constitution itself, I feel I must reject an absolutist Libertarian ideal because it denies to the Constitution what is supposed to make it so great. Honestly, would you actually argue its greatness if the framers had NOT proposed the Bill of Rights? If not, then I imagine you can see what is wrong with the literalist interpretation.

Strawman, where does it say that libertarianism opposes amendments? Show me, right now.

The assertion that there were no unconstitutional acts between 1789 and 1932

Strawman, I said no such thing. Don't take my statements and extremify them. That's intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

This was most certainly not ignorance of the Constitution, and most definitely suggests that it has been upheld despite aggressive Executive pursuit of sometimes questionable policy.

I'm going to make sure I'm clear here. Are you honestly suggesting the constitution has been overall upheld to the present day?