If you don't like it...change it.

The U.S. Constitution. Ratified on March 4, 1789, it has been the supreme law of the land for over 223 years. By 1791, the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) had been ratified and the Constitution has been amended 17 more times since then. The 27th Amendment was passed in 1992. This somewhat unusual amendment, called the "Congressional Compensation Amendment of 1789"  was passed more than 200 years after it was first submitted. The Constitution allows for a process (read Article 5 of the Constitution) for changes to be made and 27 times it has been amended. Amending the Constitution does require clearing a pretty high hurdle. Passage by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress is required to propose an amendment and three-fourths of the States must approve it for the amendment to be ratified. It does not require the signature of the President. The Supreme Court does not need to be consulted in the matter. An alternate method is for two-thirds of the states' legislatures to call for a national convention to propose amendments however, this process has never been used.

There are many Americans (and likely many foreigners) that do not like certain provision of the Constitution. There is a process to change it, though. 33 total amendments have been proposed, with 27 having been ratified. The other six were never ratified by the states. Americans could amend the Constitution to change the requirements for amending the Constitution...but that amendment would require adherence to Article 5.

Congress passes laws that are supposed to be within the scope of what the Constitution allows. In response to lawsuits filed by many states' attorneys general, the Supreme Court recently reviewed and ruled on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as "Obamacare." Considered unpopular by many Americans, the Supreme Court ruled in a very controversial opinion written by the Chief Justice that the so-called individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a fine was constitutional by virtue of Congress' constitutional taxing authority.

Many conservatives believe that Justice Roberts was wrong in his vote which allowed the more liberal justices' vote to prevail 5-4. Justice Roberts said that he tried very hard to find a constitutional basis for Congress' law because he believes that overturning a law passed by both Houses of Congress, regardless of its unpopularity with a large number of citizens, is not something that the Supreme Court should do lightly. I happen to agree with that statement.

We can't have it both ways. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If Americans believe that it needs modification, then change it. It's not easy though. You need super-majorities in Congress and the States. If you don't like a law passed by Congress or you think we need a new law passed, you can tell your members of Congress. If they don't do what you want, vote them out of office. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to do the job that is supposed to rest in the hands of voters.

It is also not  the job of the President and Executive Branch to usurp or overturn or write new laws by virtue of executive order. The Executive Branch is also not supposed to refuse to enforce duly passed laws. If they do this, then you have an opportunity every 4 years to do something about it.

Throwing rocks in the street or shouting at one another on cable TV might be fun but it doesn't change the law. As much as I may disagree with laws passed by Congress, if my side of the debate does not prevail, then I just have to work harder next time to convince my fellow citizens to vote for like minded candidates.

In the news even today we hear about displeasure with the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms...gun ownership) and the laws concerning definition of marriage (among other things.) If you don't agree with or like those laws, change them. But you better have enough Americans that agree with you. That's just the way it works.

I'm going to sue you!

Professional football players are suing the NFL because, in the course of playing football, their helmets hit other players helmets (in some cases, quite hard) and they have discovered that the numerous blows to the head were not good for them.

This out-of-left-field revelation that severe impacts to the head could result in long term issues has prompted these former players to blame it on the football league. The players had no idea this might be harmful. Didn't most professional football players attend at least 3-4 years at institutions of higher learning? But they had no idea. Bizarre. As Rod Serling would have said, "that's the signpost up ahead --your next stop, the Twilight Zone."

Players suing the NFL because playing football could cause head injuries would be like professional swimmers suing their governing body because swimming could lead to wetness.

I wonder if professional boxers are aware that having your head pounded by a fist covered with 16 ounce leather gloves might be a little harmful when done in 15 round increments over many years. Then there is the Ultimate Fighting leagues and Mixed Martial Arts contests where they literally just punch, elbow and kick the crapola out of each other until someone either gets knocked out, passes out, taps out or the fight actually comes to it's appointed ending. I think they should sue.

We have obese people suing fast food restaurants because they didn't know eating 2 Double Whoppers, a super-sized order of french fries and a trash can size cup of Mountain Dew four times a week might not be very good for you. Or people sue McDonalds because their hot coffee is actually hot and if you place the cup between your legs and some of it spills it might burn you. Cigarette smokers sue tobacco companies because they didn't know that inhaling burning tobacco leaves might cause some problems with their mouth, throat and lungs. Ever sit by a campfire and the wind direction changes, blowing all the smoke your way? Yeah, that makes me want to just sit still and savor the burning acrid fumes into my eyes, nose and throat. But maybe you smoked those cooling menthol brands of cigarettes. That would be more like a campfire that was burning Halls Mentho-Lyptus logs I guess. I think there have been warnings about tobacco usage for much of the last century. Yet, smokers didn't know.

If I fall off my bike I guess I can sue the bike manufacturer or, better yet... gravity. Maybe after growing up and discovering that my life isn't perfect, I could sue my parents for malpractice.

When I was still with E-Z-GO I was deposed during a preliminary proceeding involving a product liability lawsuit. There was a tragic accident involving a golf car and an SUV... on a highway...at night. The teenager driving the golf car was shuttling people across this rural South Carolina highway to attend a high school graduation party put on by a Dad who was a prominent doctor in the community. People parked across the highway and the golf cars provided a ride to the party. When the accident occurred, only the young driver was in the golf car. Alcoholic beverages were being consumed by  most of the attendees, adults and high schoolers alike. The plaintiff's attorneys argued that the golf car was not properly equipped to cross a highway at night. I did not disagree with that point. The golf car clearly states that it is for non-highway use only. They argued that the golf car should have been equipped with headlights and taillights so it could have been seen on the highway. We said that the operating instructions on the dash clearly stated that the golf car was for NON-HIGHWAY USE ONLY. We also indicated that a very large percentage of all golf is played in the daytime making lights on fleet golf cars unnecessary. E-Z-GO does make other models of vehicle that have uses other than golf and they are equipped differently. But this was a used golf car rented by the hosts from a local dealer (who was also being sued.) A young man was killed in a very unfortunate but avoidable accident. And somebody needed to be sued because it certainly had to be someone's fault (fault = you must pay me) other than the young man or the adults that held the party and provided the golf car for him to drive. The driver of the SUV was also sued for not seeing a 12 mph golf car with no lights crossing a 55 mph speed limit highway at night. They may have even sued the sun for setting because darkness may have also been at fault.

The point is that many people today do not take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Professional football players are paid an obscene amount of money to play a very violent sport. That non-existent touch football league doesn't quite draw the same crowds or television revenue as its full contact cousin. Football players know that they risk injury including head and neck injuries. And hockey? Oh yeah, there's a safer sport. Fisticuffs are a vital element of the game. I think they should sue for millions for each missing tooth.

This would probably be a good point to tell you a great lawyer joke...but I won't. Now, don't get me wrong. There are plenty of people that get hurt or killed through no fault of their own. It is caused by a defective product, improper procedure, negligence or a host of other reasons. These people should have the ability to seek compensation for their losses. But every bad thing that might happen to you shouldn't be looked at as an immediate opportunity to sue somebody.

A patient goes in to see a doctor and says, "Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor replies, "stop doing that." Good advice. If you are doing something that you know is bad for you..stop doing it... or quit whining about the consequences. And for heaven's sake stop looking for someone to sue.