The Constitution - to follow or not to follow, that is the burning question!

Hi Tanker. As you know, I do not like to comment much on American politics, firstly because I am an Australian, and secondly because I know very little about the American system, which seems extremely complicated compared with our simple system.

I know little about the American constitution. However I have been a secretary in numerous clubs and groups over the last fifty plus years, and I always considered part of my duty to ensure that every action was in line with the constitution of the club or group. The constitution was always the supreme authority.

Every constitution I've known has, as part of its contents, the means to change the constitution if the need arises, and I presume the American Constitution has this. The Australian Constitution can be changed, but it isn't easily accomplished (and shouldn't be).

Surely, the Constitution of any club, group, company or government MUST BE the supreme authority and must be followed. I am sure there would be steps written into the Constitution for action if the Constitution is NOT followed. But who is responsible to ensure this?

Hi Tankermone. My personal opinion is that the US was founded on very sound principals, some that have now been basically "over-run" by dozens of ammendments to the original document. Part of this is good...change requires some of these "updates," but part of it I do not see as positive.

For instance, originally, the "separation of state and church" was to protect one's right to worship freely as one saw fit. Now, though, people have turned that original protection around and used it to try to keep God, prayer, and any form of religion out of as much as possible.

I think we've suffered a lot of downfalls and issues in part because we have strayed too far from the principles of the founding father's and the original constitution.

Karen