Why are the Amendments in the Constitution defended "to the death" by interested parties?

Like the right to silence and bearing arms and free speech.





But noone ever defends the original constitution. Wouldn't a die hard purist say the original is the only true intent of the founding fathers?|||Since the means to amend the Constitution, Article. V to be exact, it is obvious that the Amendments are a part of the Constitution, and anyone who denies that cannot be said to be a diehard purist. This fact also puts to rest the ill conceived notion that the Constitution is "a living document that changes along with societal mores,"|||Well, Jon Jay suggests that times change so the needs of the free change! But the basic needs and freedoms NEVER change! We had failed our Constitution by allowing the Supreme Court to deny blacks the right of citizenship. and many more! It was the power of the Courts.. they cannot be removed and have a lifetime in the Court! What could we have done? Note that the first basic mouth for Conservatism was Abe Lincoln, the first Republican.





What counts is what happens and who supports what; right? When what the people wanted, years ago, was not supported by court decisions, the people demanded Congress and Senate to take action!





Today, people are asking Congress and Senate to repeal the health care bill because it is not a bill of freedom, but of government control and bondage. Note that abortion was included and was a big thing for support of the bill. We also note that abortion is a way to get out of a responsibility! One one hundredth of one percent are rape! That is 1/10,000th of asked for pregnancy is due to rape.





I see no real factual support, even for abortion due to rapes. James Robinson's mother was raped and tried to get an abortion.. the Dr said too far along.. oh.. by the way.. it was before Rowe vs Wade! We hear so many lies to support legal abortions... the main reason is to get approval! I approve of our children being taught by intelligent teachers that support, be responsible! Do you? They had the same choices in the 50's, but choose better ones! Earl|||I love that thought.





I always thought that the completely contradictory nature of the original Constitution validates the idea of a living document that changes along with societal mores, instead of a strict interpretation of a document written by slave owners to keep their aristocracy alive.