Help Invent a Language of Unification

[acptulsa]

George Dubya Bush said, during his first campaign, 'I'm a uniter, not a divider.' We all know how false that was...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A

Indeed, Limbaugh, Rove, Dubya and their ilk have--seemingly on purpose--created a situation where the American electorate is more polarized than at any point in my memory. I sincerely believe you have to go back to the Civil War to find an era where We, the People were more apt to be at each other's throats.

By these divisions they are conquering us.

Sometimes it seems we're no better. We stand on our principles, and we refuse to compromise them. This is good. But do our lines in the sand have to exclude people? Of course, those who stand to gain from these divisions, those who oppose us because they have 'skin in the game' and will have to sacrifice power if we have our way, are incorrigible, and we will not win them over. They are also a decided minority in this nation, and becoming a smaller minority all the time as power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. What about everyone else?

It seems to me the difference between drawing a line in the sand that excludes someone and drawing a line in the sand that includes them is often a matter of semantics. Simply put, we can explain our lines in the sand in such a way that people want to be on our side of that line.

Ron Paul explained liberty in ways that were pretty inclusive. But they weren't inclusive enough to get him the Republican nomination. His son does not have such a disdain for the sort of language Fox News uses. We're seeing the result--he looks like a decent bet to win the nomination, but those who don't hang on every bit of blather that comes out of Murdoch's echo chamber are far, far less likely to trust him than they were Ron Paul.

Is there not a way to invent a language, if you will, that includes all Americans? Seriously? We're a bunch of relatively bright people, and there are some mighty fine wordsmiths on this forum. Surely we can find ways to use the language that are so clear and undeniable that any American, young or old, male or female, rich or poor, regardless of ethnicity, cannot deny the truth of what we're saying.

I've got a couple I'm kind of proud of, and which I think might fit that description:

Trials reveal truth, funerals bury it.

Lead by example, not by force.

Do these fill the bill for you? Do you think they speak as well to Teh Left as to Teh Right? Do you have some, or are there some you've heard, that you think do this thing particularly well? If so, let's have 'em!

[acptulsa]

I've also gotten good reactions from people of all stripes with 'micromismanagement'.

[otherone]

I think this is an important discussion, and I believe we need to educate those around us about what we are about. To that end, I think there are some words we should do our best to avoid:
neocon
Liberal
Progressive
Democrat
Republican
Fascist
Marxist
Socialist
Nazi
Communist

There are others, of course, but these words only alienate people based on what side of the aisle they identify with. I think in all cases, our movement is better served by simply using the word "statist" to describe anyone who believes in the over-reaching authority of the federal (or any government).

[acptulsa]

There are others, of course, but these words only alienate people based on what side of the aisle they identify with. I think in all cases, our movement is better served by simply using the word "statist" to describe anyone who believes in the over-reaching authority of the federal (or any government).

Not a bad idea.

I'll go you one better. In order to illustrate not only what we think of them, but why, and to make the why the important part, we could simply refer to them the way we should refer to their ill-advised programs--as a cure worse than the disease.

[otherone]

Not a bad idea.

I'll go you one better. In order to illustrate not only what we think of them, but why,

All of those "ists" are reliant on the state to enact their policy, which essentially winds up being collectivism, the individual ceding his responsibility for self-actualization to the state. By the way, I think collectivist should be avoided as well, as many even in our own movement don't understand the term.
Another idea that needs to be emphasized is that loving one's country doesn't require loving one's government, and many times the opposite is true, as in the case of our founding fathers.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Help Invent a Language of Unification


I was certain this was Uncle Emmanuel. lol. (whom I appreciate now and then.)

[paulbot24]

All of those "ists" are reliant on the state to enact their policy, which essentially winds up being collectivism, the individual ceding his responsibility for self-actualization to the state. By the way, I think collectivist should be avoided as well, as many even in our own movement don't understand the term.
Another idea that needs to be emphasized is that loving one's country doesn't require loving one's government, and many times the opposite is true, as in the case of our founding fathers.

Indeed. Our government in the past was the King of England. What if they had brought soldiers over to sort of occupy the colonies "for our safety" and protect us from the "savage Indians." They would probably even provoke a few skirmishes with members of various tribes to justify and validate their existence. "You disagree with their authority? You don't support the troops? They keep us safe! How unpatriotic of you! Your ideas sound dangerous." Sound familiar? Time to dump the tea. All of it. Yes, again. Let's have ourselves another party.

[acptulsa]

I was certain this was Uncle Emmanuel. lol. (whom I appreciate now and then.)

I respectfully submit, beloved forum members, that I'm not after rampant polysyllablization in this thread.


"This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not be the aid of it."--Will Rogers 1932

Someone made an interesting point in another thread that we can't let Democrats get away with redefining gun grabbing as 'firearm safety'. We can do that too. Anyone have a good substitute for 'empowerment'? Like reverse discrimination?

[heavenlyboy34]

Indeed. Our government in the past was the King of England. What if they had brought soldiers over to sort of occupy the colonies "for our safety" and protect us from the "savage Indians." They would probably even provoke a few skirmishes with members of various tribes to justify and validate their existence. "You disagree with their authority? You don't support the troops? They keep us safe! How unpatriotic of you! Your ideas sound dangerous." Sound familiar? Time to dump the tea. All of it. Yes, again. Let's have ourselves another party.
I actually prefer the monarchy to the existing Regime.

[acptulsa]

I actually prefer the monarchy to the existing Regime.

Why? How is one dictator better than another? Is the alleged 'legitimacy' conferred by an election really more empowering to them than some mythical 'divine right of kings'?

Mandate is another one I'd like to de-fang. 'I'm only screwing you mundanes because you gave me a mandate to.' When Dubya crowed about his 'mandate' after his reelection I nearly puked. A reluctant and lukewarm plurality isn't a mandate. After the Democrats put that lose Kerry up against him, that was pretty much a mandate by forfeit.

Mandate or mundane date rape?

[acptulsa]

If the majority is considered wrong, then can not the republic be considered dead?

[heavenlyboy34]

Why? How is one dictator better than another? Is the alleged 'legitimacy' conferred by an election really more empowering to them than some mythical 'divine right of kings'?

Mandate is another one I'd like to de-fang. 'I'm only screwing you mundanes because you gave me a mandate to.' When Dubya crowed about his 'mandate' after his reelection I nearly puked. A reluctant and lukewarm plurality isn't a mandate. After the Democrats put that lose Kerry up against him, that was pretty much a mandate by forfeit.

Mandate or mundane date rape?
A lot of reasons. First, as the ultimate sole proprietor of his kingdom, the king has incentive to create the best conditions for his property and subjects. The elected representative has no incentive to think long term or rationally, because his tenure is temporary and he won't incur significant penalties for causing harm to others or their property.
Second, the monarch has less incentive to perform unpopular acts in general, as the people vastly outnumber him and can oust him almost on a whim. The elected executive, however, has no real incentive to do good, as his tyranny must be endured at least till the next election.
Third, it's harder to successfully buy off a king. He has no incentive to do that because he suffers any damage caused by this (IOW, unlimited liability).

Unless there's the option of free secession and nullification, representative systems will always be inferior.

[acptulsa]

Interesting theories. Unproven, but interesting. I still think a dictator is a dictator.

Now, then. I am king of my threads. Please stop jacking this one before I stop being a benevolent dictator.

[jcannon98188]

Interesting theories. Unproven, but interesting. I still think a dictator is a dictator.

Now, then. I am king of my threads. Please stop jacking this one before I stop being a benevolent dictator.

You progressive liberal socialist nazi facist! Wake up sheeple!

[acptulsa]

You progressive liberal socialist nazi facist! Wake up sheeple!

LOL

Unification that ain't. Or if it is, it's designed to united Red Team and Blue Team--against us. Need I say aloud that this isn't exactly what I had in mind?

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting theories. Unproven, but interesting. I still think a dictator is a dictator.

Now, then. I am king of my threads. Please stop jacking this one before I stop being a benevolent dictator.
Actually, it's quite well proven. Read this book http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YYMRZEBFL.jpg and this one http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CznstjxeL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_SX240_SY320_CR,0,0,240,320_SH20_OU01_.jpg

An interview with Dr Hoppe on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2008/08/08/15-democracy-the-god-that-failed/
A short essay on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

Note: in the works above, "Democracy" is used as a blanket term covering all representative forms of government, including parliamentary democracy and representative republicanism.
Note 2: My assertions assume that the stated goal of human action wrt government is maximum individual liberty.

[acptulsa]

Did you read the title of this thread? Did I stttttttttutter? 'Your Majesty' is not my idea of the 'language of unification'. Even so, you've mentioned it. Fine. The market can decide without you spamming the notion.

If you want to blather endlessly about monarchy, you're at perfect liberty to start a thread for it. I think you still remember how.

Next!

[torchbearer]

grok

[heavenlyboy34]

Did you read the title of this thread? Did I stttttttttutter? 'Your Majesty' is not my idea of the 'language of unification'. Even so, you've mentioned it. Fine. The market can decide without you spamming the notion.

If you want to blather endlessly about monarchy, you're at perfect liberty to start a thread for it. I think you still remember how.

Next!
Apologies, sir. That just happens to be a pet subject of mine. :o As far as a unifying language goes, Esperanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto). ;) :)

[acptulsa]

Malbonahundo!

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_46/1142343381e3c7QG.jpg

[Working Poor]

Too many sheep not enough shepards. Too many wolves not enough sheep dogs. We are just a bunch of winner's. I wish the military was not owned by the wolves.

[osan]

George Dubya Bush said, during his first campaign, 'I'm a uniter, not a divider.' We all know how false that was...

And yet when compared with president Catamite he does not even rate as a piker of the lowest order.

One must give Obama his due respect as a man who can set people at each others' throats. Granted, we are talking about very stupid people, but still.

[Working Poor]

O's people think all that needs to be done is kill everyone off who disagrees with them and O will lead them to utopia. Free health care for everyone and a free chip too.

[acptulsa]

O's people think all that needs to be done is kill everyone off who disagrees with them and O will lead them to utopia. Free health care for everyone and a free chip too.

Well, we keep telling each other that we need to chill, and stop pissing people off, because you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Even so, in our abrasiveness, we've worn away a lot of the Republican Hypocricy. And now that we have, Republicans are starting (perversely) to like us.

Must be time to do the same to the Democrats, huh? Lord knows their hypocricy runs thick, and has never been more obvious. The more the Media Echo Chambers stir each side up, the more their hypocricy rises to the surface. Eventually, it gets so obvious that even they can see it...

I wish I could find a YouTube of Addams Family Values. I love the female camp counselor. 'Don't we just hate them? Don't we wish they would just die? Well, no we don't, but...'

Oh, so liberal, caring, and most of all, tolerant. :rolleyes: How thoroughly people like that understand tolerance of groups, and how little they understand tolerance of individuals.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, we keep telling each other that we need to chill, and stop pissing people off, because you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Even so, in our abrasiveness, we've worn away a lot of the Republican Hypocricy. And now that we have, Republicans are starting (perversely) to like us.

Must be time to do the same to the Democrats, huh? Lord knows their hypocricy runs thick, and has never been more obvious. The more the Media Echo Chambers stir each side up, the more their hypocricy rises to the surface. Eventually, it gets so obvious that even they can see it...
Indeed! I've been hoping people here start infiltrating the dems for a long time. I myself don't have the stomach or patience for politics. At least, not now or in the foreseeable future. Maybe when I'm too old to do anything productive, I'll join the professional parasite/criminal (political) class. :o

[TheTexan]

Paradoxical as it may seem, the best way to unite with the people who disagree with us is to agree to separate, and go our own ways.

With that said, we should continue trying to get people on board with freedom. As always. But 'try' is the operative word there. We don't need to convince them, to be free.

Long Live the Independent Republic of California.

[acptulsa]

Paradoxical as it may seem, the best way to unite with the people who disagree with us is to agree to separate, and go our own ways.

With that said, we should continue trying to get people on board with freedom. As always. But 'try' is the operative word there. We don't need to convince them, to be free.

Long Live the Independent Republic of California.

The really paradoxical thing is they think they are free. And they'll kill us if we burst that little balloon for them. Even so, we should be there for them when they wake up from their little dream.


'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty. Now the greatest aid that I know of that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty". What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison. I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to. Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work. So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"

'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give. That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--Will Rogers

[heavenlyboy34]

Paradoxical as it may seem, the best way to unite with the people who disagree with us is to agree to separate, and go our own ways.

With that said, we should continue trying to get people on board with freedom. As always. But 'try' is the operative word there. We don't need to convince them, to be free.

Long Live the Independent Republic of California.
Could you elaborate on that a bit? It seems to me that, without rights of secession, they will not relent in letting us go about our respective ways. Not to mention, you and I are surrounded by government-"owned" land and airspace that they can use to get to us and force us into submission with their various torture and murder toys. :/

[acptulsa]

I think the best language of unification comes, strangely enough, from .38 Special:


Hold on loosely but don't let go
If you cling too tightly you're going to lose control

Of course, along the way we're going to have to prove to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that we'd love to be united with them, but only if they get over their notion of being petty tyrants.

I think we can completely have a relationship of mutual respect with them. Just as soon as we teach them some respect.

[Working Poor]

I thinks this time for a third party to get in there and fight them. Take the gloves off call like it is. We need someone very dynamic and very smart.

[TheTexan]

Could you elaborate on that a bit? It seems to me that, without rights of secession, they will not relent in letting us go about our respective ways.

It may be that you're right. Maybe it does end in violence. On the other hand, there have been many peaceful secessions in history. We cannot forever let the War of Northern Aggression restrain us from exercising our natural rights.

Perhaps we can learn something from Fort Sumter, and not give them anything they can hold against us as a reason to invade. Of course, of course, they may always false flag an attack. There is always that risk. But possibly, with the support of the seceding country's media, we can preempt that threat by saturating the airwaves with such predictions.

I don't know if they would let us secede without unnecessary violence. I really don't know. What I do know, is that there will be violence - inevitably - if we don't secede.

The better armed the seceding country can be, the greater the chance there is no violence, and the greater chance that they win in the event violence is forced upon them.


Not to mention, you and I are surrounded by government-"owned" land and airspace that they can use to get to us and force us into submission with their various torture and murder toys. :/

I'm not talking about seceding individually, but as states, or groups of states, or large chunks of states. Texas has plenty of its own torture and murder toys to retaliate with.

Once the state secession is done, we can work on seceding into smaller and smaller pieces, increasing freedom with every step.

[Natural Citizen]

But 'try' is the operative word there. We don't need to convince them, to be free.



But one should convince them to fight for freedom? Let me ask you this. What is the first thing that pops into your head when you hear the term freedom fighter?

[TheTexan]

But one should convince them to fight for freedom? Let me ask you this. What is the first thing that pops into your head when you hear the term freedom fighter?

Not sure where you're going with that, clarification?

[Origanalist]

But one should convince them to fight for freedom? Let me ask you this. What is the first thing that pops into your head when you hear the term freedom fighter?

American Colonists

[Natural Citizen]

Not sure where you're going with that, clarification?

Well, I wasn't exactly sure where you were headed either. Which is why I asked it that way. You're just using the term freedom generally, I suppose? I was just reading some place else that a poster had mentioned that people should replace the term liberty with freedom at the whim of Frank fuggin Luntz because he thinks people adapt to it better. Unfortunately those same people he references will surely hear it twisted in terms of a new breed of American freedom fighters if he and his cohorts have anything to say about it. Media and the like. You know? It's just a dangerous play on words that can be more dangerous than useful if instigated from a purely political spectrum as frank suggests.

Was just an off the top of my head response is all.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Was just curious.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

George Dubya Bush said, during his first campaign, 'I'm a uniter, not a divider.' We all know how false that was...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A

Indeed, Limbaugh, Rove, Dubya and their ilk have--seemingly on purpose--created a situation where the American electorate is more polarized than at any point in my memory. I sincerely believe you have to go back to the Civil War to find an era where We, the People were more apt to be at each other's throats.

By these divisions they are conquering us.

Sometimes it seems we're no better. We stand on our principles, and we refuse to compromise them. This is good. But do our lines in the sand have to exclude people? Of course, those who stand to gain from these divisions, those who oppose us because they have 'skin in the game' and will have to sacrifice power if we have our way, are incorrigible, and we will not win them over. They are also a decided minority in this nation, and becoming a smaller minority all the time as power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. What about everyone else?

It seems to me the difference between drawing a line in the sand that excludes someone and drawing a line in the sand that includes them is often a matter of semantics. Simply put, we can explain our lines in the sand in such a way that people want to be on our side of that line.

Ron Paul explained liberty in ways that were pretty inclusive. But they weren't inclusive enough to get him the Republican nomination. His son does not have such a disdain for the sort of language Fox News uses. We're seeing the result--he looks like a decent bet to win the nomination, but those who don't hang on every bit of blather that comes out of Murdoch's echo chamber are far, far less likely to trust him than they were Ron Paul.

Is there not a way to invent a language, if you will, that includes all Americans? Seriously? We're a bunch of relatively bright people, and there are some mighty fine wordsmiths on this forum. Surely we can find ways to use the language that are so clear and undeniable that any American, young or old, male or female, rich or poor, regardless of ethnicity, cannot deny the truth of what we're saying.

I've got a couple I'm kind of proud of, and which I think might fit that description:

Trials reveal truth, funerals bury it.

Lead by example, not by force.

Do these fill the bill for you? Do you think they speak as well to Teh Left as to Teh Right? Do you have some, or are there some you've heard, that you think do this thing particularly well? If so, let's have 'em!

I just posted a thread concerning this issue. As a third party entity, we should narrow down to a conclusion which is bipartisan to the extent that it can then be posted in both the Republican and Democrat forums. This is what I've been trying to achieve. The best money isn't in and of itself, that isn't what made these United States great, but the best of money is derived from the Truth itself. As such a Truth is unapproachable, practically speaking, then the next best way, economically speaking, would be those truths or virtues which lead towards that Truth.
In other words, money is just one abstract of the ideal government. We weren't a rich nation because of our government, our schools, our business executives, our doctors, or God damned lawyers, and so on. We still are a rich nation because of our Civil Purpose. That is the only aspect which makes us unique!

[acptulsa]

Well, I wasn't exactly sure where you were headed either. Which is why I asked it that way. You're just using the term freedom generally, I suppose? I was just reading some place else that a poster had mentioned that people should replace the term liberty with freedom at the whim of Frank fuggin Luntz because he thinks people adapt to it better. Unfortunately those same people he references will surely hear it twisted in terms of a new breed of American freedom fighters if he and his cohorts have anything to say about it. Media and the like. You know? It's just a dangerous play on words that can be more dangerous than useful if instigated from a purely political spectrum as frank suggests.

Probably.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/CheHigh.jpg/230px-CheHigh.jpg

And that's probably exactly why effing Frank suggested it--just to lay us a land mine and hope we're dumb enough to step on it.

Thank you for getting right to the point of this thread. It's like the forces of divide and conquer have loaded the English language with land mines. The 'political correctness movement' seems to have been engineered specifically for this very purpose.

It's a wonder any of our politicians can say anything. It's no wonder Obama spends half is time saying 'erm' and 'uhhhhhh....' We all spend two seconds thinking of what we want to say, and thirty seconds looking for a safe way to say it.

There was a time when more of the language was safe to use...


I just posted a thread concerning this issue. As a third party entity, we should narrow down to a conclusion which is bipartisan to the extent that it can then be posted in both the Republican and Democrat forums. This is what I've been trying to achieve.

Exactly. But sometimes I think we'd actually be better off with Esperanto. No one would understand a word we said, but at least that wouldn't piss them off the way the CNN keywords piss some off and the Limbaugh keywords piss of the rest...


We weren't a rich nation because of our government, our schools, our business executives, our doctors, or God damned lawyers, and so on. We still are a rich nation because of our Civil Purpose. That is the only aspect which makes us unique!

Ah, now, this one I can help with--or, rather, a fellow Oklahoman can help us out with it.


"This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not be the aid of it."--Will Rogers 1932

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Probably.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/CheHigh.jpg/230px-CheHigh.jpg

And that's probably exactly why effing Frank suggested it--just to lay us a land mine and hope we're dumb enough to step on it.

Thank you for getting right to the point of this thread. It's like the forces of divide and conquer have loaded the English language with land mines. The 'political correctness movement' seems to have been engineered specifically for this very purpose.

It's a wonder any of our politicians can say anything. It's no wonder Obama spends half is time saying 'erm' and 'uhhhhhh....' We all spend two seconds thinking of what we want to say, and thirty seconds looking for a safe way to say it.

There was a time when more of the language was safe to use...



Exactly. But sometimes I think we'd actually be better off with Esperanto. No one would understand a word we said, but at least that wouldn't piss them off the way the CNN keywords piss some off and the Limbaugh keywords piss of the rest...



Ah, now, this one I can help with--or, rather, a fellow Oklahoman can help us out with it.

While our Founders devised a practical government, they also devised one that is ideal. In other words, as laws within the U.S. Constitution work within the limits of a very small box, the same one that has us all imprisoned like fools, the new order they declared within The Declaration of Independence is supposed to work outside of the box. The word "amend" means "careful consideration" or "to consider carefully." Or, to put it another way, if the perverted meaning actually meant "to change," then wouldn't the original amendments within the Constitution mean "changements?"
Put the careful considerations of the Constitution together along with the new order established within The Declaration of Independence and you have something possible. Any other way will lead to chaos. This exponential relativity isn't just true within the United States, but has universal meaning as any lifeforms living on the moon or upon Mars would appreciate it.

[heavenlyboy34]

While our Founders devised a practical government, they also devised one that is ideal.
According to who? It is not ideal to me, nor was it desirable to many of our forebears at that time.

Put the careful considerations of the Constitution together along with the new order established within The Declaration of Independence and you have something possible. Any other way will lead to chaos. This exponential relativity isn't just true within the United States, but has universal meaning as any lifeforms living on the moon or upon Mars would appreciate it.
That's impossible, though. The letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence were disregarded by the authors of the Constitution. IOW, trying to reconcile these two causes cognitive dissonance at best, and tyranny at the worst.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

According to who? It is not ideal to me, nor was it desirable to many of our forebears at that time.

That's impossible, though. The letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence were disregarded by the authors of the Constitution. IOW, trying to reconcile these two causes cognitive dissonance at best, and tyranny at the worst.

Stop and think about the side you are arguing. It has long been proven that government cannot be controlled by the implementation of laws as law for the sake of law is nothing more than chaos. While such a tyranny of confusion existed prior to them in the old world, our Founders set up a system which utilized government for the express purpose of advancing the order. Civilizations which don't advance become the worst kind of tyrannical dynasties. Prior to the new order our Founders established, the futile order was chaos. This futility then became thought of as the order of the old world.

A subtle difference between tyranny and government is how a legitimate government is made to distinguish itself from organized crime. In the olden days of the monarchies, there was little effort put into distinguishing that which was organized crime and that which was government.

An example of what I speak was the treatment of those good people during hurricane Katrina when, right after the storm, the gangs moved in to steal and pillage, largely because of the way most of the police officers fled the city prior to the hurricane. In response to this crime, the police then went into the homes of both the good and the bad to take their weapons. If it wins out, then tyranny will work like this making little effort to hide the fact that it is a combination of government and organized crime.

There is no hope within a box of laws. The only hope is the order found outside of it. (I have not come to abolish the prophets nor the law, but to fulfill it [advance the order]).

When the Constitution was created, it was thought to exist unalienable beyond interpretation. The word "Amend," according to my friend, means "carefully considered" and doesn't express the meaning of Obama "change." So, the careful considerations within The U.S. Constitution, with this being our legal marriage to a more perfect Union, were designed with the intentions of advancing the new order our Founders declared as a natural law within The Declaration of Independence, which was justification for our formal divorce.
Our formal divorce was more justified than our legal marriage as their argument was made under the very judgement of God. During the time they were doing so, our United States existed without a king. Think about that. We didn't create a new nation by the blessing of a king as was the normal legal precedence during that time.