Alright, zuzak, I might concede that last point, because I'm almost falling into my own pit of majority rule over rule of law. I suppose I could draw up a ridiculous situation showing that sometimes you have to take practicality over legal document, but I won't resort to that. I will say that laws can be antiquated and that while the Founding Fathers were phenomenally intelligent they were not prescient, and they were not infallible. I'm not suggesting that the rule of law be subverted, I'm suggesting that it might be appropriate to change the rule of law to something more practical and relevant.

Even then, I think there are always exceptions to rules, and situations where common sense may have to override law and standard operating procedure. I believe I heard this from a TED talk, but there was once a man who mistakenly gave his child Mike's Hard Lemonade not realizing it was an alcoholic beverage. The child was rushed to the hospital, despite not being in any serious danger, and then placed in a foster home for three days before being returned to his home as long as the father stayed at a motel as a judge decreed. It was SOP and legal procedure, but anyone including those involved could clearly see how ridiculous the whole situation was. If the Constitution explicitly banned weapons, would you still sit idly by if the president became a dictator? I'm sure you can imagine a few things the Constitution might say that might seem extremely historically or even theoretically relevant but just not the case in current times or in practical terms.