EDITORIAL - In a recent argument I had over the Constitutionality of minimum wage, defenders of the program insist that, although the Constitution never explicitly gives the government the right to regulate wages, they still support it. This mentality is not only shocking, but downright dangerous to the functioning of our Constitutional Republic.

Oh, I was not only debating liberals with this viewpoint, but also conservatives. While conservatives in this argument were honest enough to admit that the program they support is unconstitutional, liberals avoid the admission like the plague. Instead, they point to carefully chosen Supreme Court decisions where our robed magicians interpreted the Constitution in such a manner.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, ?The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.? The Supreme Court, after all, once upheld slavery (Dred Scott) in 1856, citing the creative interpretation that the Constitution does not guarantee citizenship rights to black people and the notion that outlawing slavery would infringe on the rights of white slave owners to their property, which were black people. In 1883, in fact, our supreme robed magicians opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which gave white and black people alike equal rights to public services and accommodations.

Liberals point to the Supreme Court and a predominantly left-wing judiciary because, plainly, there is no other plausible argument that makes any sense, especially those that come from everyday liberals themselves. We must not rationalize our beliefs based on the judiciary system because activist judges are part of the problem.

Ask a liberal to defend the Constitutionality of minimum wage in their own words, and then watch them stumble about like stuttering frightened school children. It might help to have the Constitution in front of you as the liberal speaks, so you can point out the insurmountable fallacies that seem to flood the brains of liberals when they speak of the Constitution.

The problem stems from a never ending urge to rationalize away ?feel good? legislation. To be fair, both liberals and conservatives are guilty of such rationalizations, and minimum wage is a clear example. But, our government does not operate under some idealized sense of right and wrong. They operate under the Constitution ? at least it is supposed to.

The government has one specific purpose: to protect our national defense and our most basic civil rights. It does not exist to ?manage? our retirement, or redistribute wealth or regulate wages from private companies. Socialism comfortably operates under those principles, but not a Constitutional republic. Our republic was originally built to honor individual liberties and maintain a bastion of pure unrestricted freedom, so long as that freedom does not interfere with someone else?s.

Both parties need to decide, once and for all, where they stand on the Constitution. Neither party can pick and choose the areas of the Constitution they wish to follow. The document needs to be followed completely and exclusively. Otherwise, it ceases to be a Constitution, only a written collection of non-enforced suggestions ? take it or leave it.

How do we change our government for the better? Forget lawsuits. Forget protests. Change starts at the grassroots level by true freedom loving people of all races, colors and genders. Electing the right politicians who not only promise to uphold the Constitution, but have demonstrated their understanding of it, is essential. Brace yourselves, because this may require voting for a third party, perhaps the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party. Take a good, hard look at their talking points and start to consider how strongly each candidate actually believes in our founding document.

Organize social events to discuss these issues. Start web sites. We, as true lovers of freedom, have a lot of work ahead of us. Let?s start tackling them one step at a time until we turn our government around into one that our founding fathers would again recognize.