A while back, probably a few years or so, there was a long discussion on this board about what should be changed in the US Constitution. After reading it closely, I found very little wrong with the original - the problem seems to come from our legislative/judicial/executive bodies ignoring what it actually says, and doing what they please. At any rate, I continually come across things in my research that show that a lot of the men who were most determined to save the Union, ie, the United States as one big country whether you wanted to be in it or not, were not nearly so dedicated to preserving the Constitution that they had sworn to uphold. What I'm trying to say is, they seemed to be of the attitude that "The country must be saved, and damn the Constitution if it gets in the way."
So, the question I'd like to see discussed is, "Which is more important - the preservation of the Union, or the preservation of the Constitution." And please, let's get some thoughtful, reasoned input for a little while, anyway, before we get into the standard "All Yankees Must Die" mode.