A fascinating discussion has been occurring on my Facebook page which ended up with comments about whether leaders of either party are knowingly trying to change the Constitution.

I cannot speak to intent, that is a matter of the heart but I can speak to actions.  I would refer you to the first days after Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, 2007, Jan or Feb...two votes which essentially changed the Constitution, not by the normal process of 2/3 vote in House and Senate, signed by the President then ratified by 3/4 of the States. 

The changes happened as a result of rule changes on the floor of the House, simple majority votes.

They affected Article 1, Section 2, members of the House of Representatives.  One vote gave the delegate from D.C. a vote on the House floor.  That issue was specifically considered when our founding fathers were still alive they said to paraphrase,  "No, the intent was that the D.C. was not to be represented like a state."

The second vote gave delegates from the protectorates, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa etc. a vote on the House floor.  Again, the same article says members are to be from the States.  Later in the same article it describes that representation in the House shall be determined by population.  The delegate from American Samoa represents only about 57,000 people.  The average in the whole house is 600,000 people, so a second conflict with the Constitution occurred on this one vote.

For those who would like to further consider carelessness with our Constitution by our government in these times, consider the 5th Amendment that protects private property from being taken without just compensation.  The most recent example of that is the San Jouaquin Valley in California.  The water for the farmers was shut off by a judge. 27,000 people who last year were working and paying taxes are now on welfare.  Water is a private property.  It was taken from them.  Jobs are lost. 

Everyday, here in New Mexico, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are reducing grazing rights paid for by a rancher, but taken away without just compensation.

The last example I will give is the 10th Amendment, the powers not specifically given to the federal government ( a very short list is enumerated) are reserved for the states.  This is the one that really gets in the way of both parties.  They so much want to do things from D.C. that frankly require that the Constitution to be ignored.

I believe the best government is that which is closest to the people. I think Washington is already doing too much.  One size does not fit all, but that is all we can legislate in D.C. so we stumble along with these conflicts to our Constitution that are bogging us down, giving lobbyists more power and  making people feel like they have no voice.  We should appropriate dollars straight to local governments when possible...put the most government right back among the daily lives of the people. 

I can't speak to the heart of the ones insisting on the current interpretation of the Constitution as a living document, I can only verify that our Constitution is being changed every day by processes and decisions that are removing our rights.  People are disenfranchised and angry when that occurs.