This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.
Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?
I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is
their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:
The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:
"The right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.
Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it
is "constitutional".
And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….
Anyway...
We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.
This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.
In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.
It's cut and dry Candy. Just because you don't like, doesn't mean you get to change. It clearly says the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militias. The framers were giving a WHY as to the necessity (i.e. why it was necessary). But that is
not the WHAT. The what is that the
people have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, there is simply no denying that. You're being very disingenuous and you know it.
As far as the rest, again, I largely agree with you. But if you look in this millennium, who was the one who really started the obstructionism? Harry Reid. As Senate Majority Leader, he started blocking voting on bills even though he had the majority (obviously, as Senate leader) whenever there was indication that some Democrats might "cross over" on legislation. Which is really the worst form of tyranny. If other Democrats were willing to cross over, then most likely the legislation was something
really good. But Harry Reid, being a radicalized ideologue and an authoritarian, refused to even allow voting on it.
The bottom line is, the further we have moved away from the U.S. Constitution, the more we have seen this country fail. We need to return to a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. And anyone who feels that the document no longer meets the needs of the 21st century, needs to have an honest conversation about that and then convince people to get the votes needed to
legally amend the Constitution. If one can't get the votes they need, then they need to accept that it is the will of the American people.
) can you tell us why you are so afraid? I've never seen anyone this freaked out to give a simple yes or no answer. I mean, hell, you've got a 50/50 chance of getting it right. We know you have no clue about the Constitution but even you have decent odds at 50/50.
