Now Family-Friendly!

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Lousy Mathews

Here is an article I wrote that got rejected from the provonian for some reason.

Amending the Constitution: Hero or Menace?

Recently, it has come to my attention that our own American constitution is not as concrete as everyone says it is. It has also come to my attention that the founding fathers (who, as it turns out, were neither founding nor fathers) made it legal to “amend” the constitution. These so called amendments are just ways for those capitalist fat-cats down in Washington to infringe on our God-given rights. I intend to prove this throughout the course of this article.
Through my research on this subject, I have obtained the actual convention, presided over by George Washington, which occurred during the creation of the constitution. Here is an excerpt from that meeting:

Washington: So we’re all in agreement that Thomas Jefferson’s wife is a fox?

All murmur in agreement.

Adams: …and a demon in the sack.

Jefferson: Oh, you heard about that?

Adams: hesitates…uhh….yeah.

Washington: Okay, the taxpayers are paying us up the yin-yang so we probably should do some work here.

Tables are thrown over and several storm out of the room before order is restored.

Washington: We need to find a way to be able to marry our attractive cousins.

Chef Boy-ar-dee: Why don’t we just make a law that makes those marriages legal.

Washington: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the constitution…

Chef Boy-ar-dee: …we could make all sorts of crazy laws!

Washington: Now you’re on the trolley!

And thus the amendments were born. The founding fathers then created the first ten amendments, which is now called the “Bill of Rights.” After being enlightened on the subject, I have come to call it “The Bill of Wrongs.” Don’t get me wrong, because I’m all for the purpose of these amendments, I just think some people don’t understand the purpose of these amendments. For example, I have recently been told that some government officials consider robbing a bank to be unlawful. I was just exercising my fourth amendment rights (The fourth amendment is about search and seizure, by the way). I was searching for money, and I found it in the bank. I then proceeded to seize the money when a policeman rudely tackled me stole my firearm. Which brings me to my next point. The second amendment (the right to bear arms) has been getting a lot of undeserved guff lately. What people don’t understand is that if we weren’t allowed to have guns, the King of England could come right into our school and start pushing us around. Do you want that? All right then.

Those tree-huggin’ environmentalists have gone way too far when they tried to abolish civilian-owed assault rifles. We need those automatic weapons to hunt the appropriately named super-predators. Such as the electric eel, and the flying squirrel.
It seems nowadays, the only people who support our second amendment are the Hillbillies (or Sons of the Soil as they prefer to be called). I know this because every time I go into a trailer park (a natural breeding ground for Hillbillies), there is at least one small child carelessly waving a gun in the air or at least cleaning their ear out with the barrel of a handgun. I salute that child, as should every true American. The way I see it, the only problem with the gun-supporters is that one hundred percent of them believe it is mandatory to have sleeveless shirts in order to own a gun. It may have something to do with the misspelling of the word “bear”, in the amendment, but nothing has been proven so far.

But enough about the Bill of Wrongs. What really honks my hooter is how obvious it is that the Prohibition amendment was not enforced even in congress. The evidence of this are the two amendments which immediately follow the Prohibition amendment. One of which is the Lame Duck amendment. I’m pretty sure that this amendment requires all ducks to wear long pants. I see no problem with this amendment except that congress failed to include instructions on what can be considered long pants or if a belt should be required with the poultriotic ensemble. Therefore, I believe that congress had to be a little hung over when they made this amendment.
The other is for Women’s suffrage. Okay, I admit it, I have no idea what suffrage means. But if you take the word apart, the definition reveals itself. Okay, first there’s su. That sounds like an acronym for some kind of university, possibly Scranton University. Then there’s an ff. Double letters usually aren’t important so we’ll omit those. Then there’s rage. So the way I see it, the amendment for Women’s Suffrage makes it legal for all women at Scranton University to exhibit raw rage (or possibly grilled or deep-fried rage, but I digress). Congress had to be hopped up on goofballs to make such a preposterous amendment. For one thing, why would congress choose a university like Scranton? Why didn’t they choose a fine school like Brown University? But no matter, the Prohibition amendment was soon repealed and our congress went back to legally making laws while intoxicated like good ol’ George Washington intended.

The most recent amendment has to do with Congressional Pay Raises. I have no problem with this amendment. I mean, congress has been embezzling money from us taxpayers for years. At least now they aren’t trying to hide it anymore. This amendment signifies that although the government is continuing to screw us, everyone has accepted it. I am just glad to know that we have become one nation, under the almighty dollar, with liberty and justice for no one.

No comments: