Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Jul 31, 2012.
If they won't respect the Constitution, what makes anyone think they will a new piece of paper?
I think most of our reps would express respect for the Constitution. Many of them likely even believe they abide by it. The problem is one of clarity. Whether through successive 'reinterpretations' or simply vagueries in the original document, there's no clear consensus on the degree to which the Constitution limits government. Thus the need for a statement that reaffirms its meaning.
As has been discussed, that might meant actually adding new amendments. It might mean simply expressing, in some politically binding way, a mandate from the people on what we want the Constitution to mean. I'm not well-versed enough on Constitutional law to know what would be required to make the ideas expressed in the OP stick, but I think if it was widely supported our leaders would follow.
The problem is that our elected leaders and the bureaucrats they put into influential positions look at the Constitution as restricting only what they can't do. They do not see it as a document that allows them to do only certain things.
Thus the temptation to use government for power,influence peddling, and self serving advantage becomes overwhelming. They spend as much as they think they can get away with as that justifies an even bigger budget. There is zero benefit to any of them for spending less, for being economical, for getting the most bang from the buck. The bigger the budget, the more money the bureaucrat is worth. The more money that can be funneled to voters and key campaign contributors, etc., the more powerful the legislator becomes. The very system is a huge incentive for inefficient and ineffective government.
The purpose of the resolution is to take away their power to use our money to advantage themselves in any way. It should provide a huge incentive to do government better.
And it gives us a fighting chance to return to the Constitutional intent that government is restricted to what the Constitution allows and not what the Constitution forbids.
Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?
No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all. I just think they have reversed the original intent. It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.
The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do. I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.
That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.
And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?
Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.
On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......
So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.
So they willfully changed the intent of the Constitution. What keeps them from reinterpreting the new piece of paper?
Which is why I suggested three amendments:
1. One term only.
2. Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
3. All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.
I believe that if our Congressmen served one term only we'd never see them get ANYTHING accomplished.
That may be a good thing.
I especially agree with number 3. Why in the world would a military spending authorization bill include a provision for funding a frog farm in Florida, for example?
The frog farm sounds a lot cheaper.
Gridlock is the only thing saving us at the moment.
Separate names with a comma.