Columnist Lane Filler's premise that the Bill of Rights is an anachronism and requires redefinition is misguided and narrow ["A new Constitution?" Opinion, July 1.]

The strength of our Constitution is that it is not merely a compilation of rules, but a document that embodies enduring general principles and values identified in the preamble. The application of these principles is a continual and imperfect process.

advertisement | advertise on newsday

What's more, we don't require Thomas Jefferson's permission to redefine or change it. Article V allows for the proposal of new amendments and the process for such.

As to Filler's apparently libertarian and Ayn Rand-inspired suggestions, he would also have to change the preamble. Not "We the People," but something like, "I, a person of the United States, concerned only and exclusively with myself; caring not about promoting the General Welfare, or securing the Blessings of Liberty for anyone other than myself, and not even my Posterity, do ordain and establish this new Constitution of the United States of America."

With all its shortcomings, I believe we should stick with the original.

Don Pfeifer, Hempstead