Monday, August 04, 2003
CAERDROIA ON THE CONSTITUTION
In a thoughtful post on Caerdroia :
"I really like our Constitution as is, but I suspect that I am in the minority. The reality is, we have not actually been following large portions of the Constitution since the 1930's. The Federal government has been increasingly becoming intrusive on private Liberties, and the States have increasingly been becoming puppets of Federal laws and regulations. (Hence, a State may pass a medical marijuana law, but not prevent the enforcement of Federal regulations banning the use of marijuana.) The combination of redistribution of income (both to individuals via various welfare programs, and to States using mechanisms such as highway funding) and the removal of limits to Federal power (via doctrines such as "interstate commerce refers to anything that happens that might effect the economy" and "the government has a compelling interest to do anything it says it has a compelling interest to do" and "a limited time means any time which is not actually infinite, up to and including 3 billion years" and so on and so on)."
I share Jeff's dismay at the current state of Constitutional affairs which themselves may have contributed to decline in public support for our basic liberties. Or selective non-support, since most people are more interested in curtailing the rights of groups of people they dislike rather than waiving their own freedoms. Jeff continues:
"It is clear to me that, no matter how much I hate the idea, it is time for the States to invoke their authority under Article V and call a Convention for the purpose of rewriting the Constitution. It is far better for us to have a mediocre Constitution that we actually follow, than an excellent Constitution which we ignore at our leisure.
I hate the idea too. Not because Caerdroia's Constitutional Convention idea isn't intellectually honest -it is - it's just that given human nature and the overweeening will to power of the progressive Left and the zanies of the religious right they won't respect an accurate but mediocre version of the Constitution either. In fact, they'd respect it less because whatever new Frankenstein monster hodgepodge that might be left after a Convention shredded our system of government would not have an ounce of the sanctity in the public mind of the old version. Today at least, the Supreme Court occasionally acknowledges the existence of the Tenth amendment and treats with some seriousness the phrase " Congress shall make no law...". After a modern Convention ( you think there are a lot of kooks running for Governor in California ? Call a Convention and watch who files papers) we might as well simply have a small directorate rule by decree because that would be the long term result in fact if not in form.
Octavian became Augustus and Republican Rome became an Empire not by revolution but by doing new things under hallowed old names.
¶ 11:30 PM
In a thoughtful post on Caerdroia :
"I really like our Constitution as is, but I suspect that I am in the minority. The reality is, we have not actually been following large portions of the Constitution since the 1930's. The Federal government has been increasingly becoming intrusive on private Liberties, and the States have increasingly been becoming puppets of Federal laws and regulations. (Hence, a State may pass a medical marijuana law, but not prevent the enforcement of Federal regulations banning the use of marijuana.) The combination of redistribution of income (both to individuals via various welfare programs, and to States using mechanisms such as highway funding) and the removal of limits to Federal power (via doctrines such as "interstate commerce refers to anything that happens that might effect the economy" and "the government has a compelling interest to do anything it says it has a compelling interest to do" and "a limited time means any time which is not actually infinite, up to and including 3 billion years" and so on and so on)."
I share Jeff's dismay at the current state of Constitutional affairs which themselves may have contributed to decline in public support for our basic liberties. Or selective non-support, since most people are more interested in curtailing the rights of groups of people they dislike rather than waiving their own freedoms. Jeff continues:
"It is clear to me that, no matter how much I hate the idea, it is time for the States to invoke their authority under Article V and call a Convention for the purpose of rewriting the Constitution. It is far better for us to have a mediocre Constitution that we actually follow, than an excellent Constitution which we ignore at our leisure.
I hate the idea too. Not because Caerdroia's Constitutional Convention idea isn't intellectually honest -it is - it's just that given human nature and the overweeening will to power of the progressive Left and the zanies of the religious right they won't respect an accurate but mediocre version of the Constitution either. In fact, they'd respect it less because whatever new Frankenstein monster hodgepodge that might be left after a Convention shredded our system of government would not have an ounce of the sanctity in the public mind of the old version. Today at least, the Supreme Court occasionally acknowledges the existence of the Tenth amendment and treats with some seriousness the phrase " Congress shall make no law...". After a modern Convention ( you think there are a lot of kooks running for Governor in California ? Call a Convention and watch who files papers) we might as well simply have a small directorate rule by decree because that would be the long term result in fact if not in form.
Octavian became Augustus and Republican Rome became an Empire not by revolution but by doing new things under hallowed old names.
¶ 11:30 PM
