Litigating for loopholes
I loved our Constitution when the First Amendment meant you could say or write what you believed in without lying, being profane, or making threats against another person or organization. When peacefully assemble didn’t mean you could pitch tents in public plazas and pillage and burn private property. When you could address the government for grievance with out hiring a lobbyist or a lawyer.
I loved the Constitution when the Second Amendment meant private citizens could own and bear arms for hunting or self-protection but it didn’t mean you could own AK47’s or 50-caliber handguns that have no purpose but to kill people. When you couldn’t start your own private militias to take the law into your own hands.
When the Fourth Amendment didn’t allow the government to snoop through your personal papers or bug your phones but did allow the police, with probable cause, to do so with a warrant.
When the Sixth Amendment, pertaining to a speedy trial, didn’t mean two years later and appeals didn’t last half a lifetime.
When the Eighth Amendment didn’t mean prisoners had to have country club accommodations or it was called cruel and unusual punishment. I could go on but I won’t. You get the picture of what judges, legislators and lawyers have done over the years to the rules our country was founded on. They weren’t perfect, but if there were changes made, it should have been for the better, not litigated for every probable loophole, so our increasingly permissive society, could render them almost useless in the name of progress. God help us. Can I say that?