The historical record suggests that voters do not have a particularly good record in this respect. Shall I recount the instance of a dead mule having voted in a statewide election, and being upheld in court? And please note that in the current election process, we are presented with three candidates who are self avowed enemies of the Bill of Rights - and thus the Constitution, having anounced that they favor one form or another of further infringing on the Second Ammendment, 'which shall not be infringed'! Which enemy of the Constitution do you favor? Clinton, Obama, or McCain? And why have you failed to make sure that at least one of them is knowledgable?

The very purpose of the Constitution - and particularly the Bill of Rights - is to draw a line in the sand beyond which Government is not permitted to go. Trouble is, who can deny Government that authority? I suggest that you stand up with your rifle in hand and announce that you are taking over the government that is out of control. I suspect that you will quickly discover that you don't have that authority. The idea of a militia defending the Constitution is considerably less attractive when the militia - armed with handguns and rifles - goes up against artillery and napalm. To say the least, a modern militia is considerably less practical than when the militia were up against similarly armed Redcoats. Granted, a suburban warfare movement could be sustained, but Iraq - painful as it is - is proof that this won't stand up against a modern army either.

On the other hand, violation of a Constitutional Amendment could at least be cited by political antagonists in persuasion of citizens to vote 'right', or for the antagonists. And if our legislators and officials were educated enough to understand the constitution, such violations could be sharply curtailed by the lack of support from true patriots in the party. At the very least, they'd know enough to raise the alarm, which would be an effective curtailment in itself.

Molly