People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"
So on one level, yes I think we need to scrap the current system and start over. Call a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the Constitution, with additional safeguards to ensure that, down the road, the political class doesn't usurp the law to benefit themselves. This is, I guess, my "gut level" reaction.
Then my intellectual side kicks in- or as one might call it my "cynical bastard" side. Because while the Framers who met some 220 years ago were men of incredible achievement (both before and after the Convention), who took the best ideas out there and found a way to make them work, the only chance a new Convention would have is to completely exclude anyone who calls him or herself a "progressive" or a "liberal". Because they would destroy the whole thing, possibly on the spot, but certainly within a generation or so.
The only possible hope would be if we had men such as Madison and Washington to lead the movement. But we don't. I don't know if such men exist anymore, but if they do, they wouldn't be involved in this affair. So there's no chance.
My gut has long led me to believe that the current system in the US is hurtling towards disaster. Politicians are corrupt, and pass laws without any interest in how their constituents feel about it. And of course the judiciary has become the "go-to" place to implement progressive laws that most people oppose.
So on one level, yes I think we need to scrap the current system and start over. Call a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the Constitution, with additional safeguards to ensure that, down the road, the political class doesn't usurp the law to benefit themselves. This is, I guess, my "gut level" reaction.
Then my intellectual side kicks in- or as one might call it my "cynical bastard" side. Because while the Framers who met some 220 years ago were men of incredible achievement (both before and after the Convention), who took the best ideas out there and found a way to make them work, the only chance a new Convention would have is to completely exclude anyone who calls him or herself a "progressive" or a "liberal". Because they would destroy the whole thing, possibly on the spot, but certainly within a generation or so.
And like so many "progressive" ideas, it would seem innocent: "We need" they would say, "to protect the rights of X". And most people would agree. After all, it seems pretty sensible, and completely rational. But the liberal mindset can destroy anything, and turn anything to evil. So this section would be written in a way that would then be "interpreted" to mean something completely different by liberal judges (a redundancy, of course). And then it's off to the races!
There is nothing that a liberal can't turn around and morph into something other than what it is. If a law or a policy says A, liberals will turn it around and claim that it also means B. And then claim that it only sorta means A.
Think I'm making it up, or exaggerating? Fine. Tell me exactly where the word "abortion" appears in the US Constitution. Good luck. Start now.....
Think I'm making it up, or exaggerating? Fine. Tell me exactly where the word "abortion" appears in the US Constitution. Good luck. Start now.....
Give up? Okay. Well to a progressive, it's in the 14th amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Now, if you're like me, you don't see it. But of course, if you're a progressive, then it's kinda sorta in there someplace, so it has to be made official. And thus abortion becomes a Constitutional Right. Ditto this year for gay marriage. "Wow! It's been there all along! Hiding in plain sight! How did we manage to miss that for 220 years?"
But some of us, who have actually read the Constitution in its entirety, also know about this little sentence:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, if it ain't explicitly in the Constitution, then it's none of Washington's damn business. Period. End of discussion. And I've yet to find the terms "abortion" and "gay marriage" in the Constitution. And this last sentence comprises what some experts in legal matters call "The 10th Amendment." Check that one out too.
Do you see my concern now? It's easy to say that government has gotten too big, too corrupt, too... whatever, and argue for a new constitution. And I'd agree with you. Except that I have a concern. Don't believe those that tell you gravity is the strongest force in the universe. Or any other science-y type thing. The most powerful force in the entire universe is The Law of Unintended Consequences. It's gotten the US- and the western world- to where we are now. And like a ball rolling down a hill, it's getting more and more powerful; and rolling faster and faster. Soon, we'll all look like Wile E. Coyote after yet another futile attempt at catching his dinner.
The only possible hope would be if we had men such as Madison and Washington to lead the movement. But we don't. I don't know if such men exist anymore, but if they do, they wouldn't be involved in this affair. So there's no chance.
America as a nation is doomed. Cause of death is liberalism. And apathy. The diseased body just doesn't care enough to fight anymore. We need to revise our entire system of government, but any attempt would be doomed at birth. Sad but true.
