Not a dumb question, IMO.
I was thinking of another question: If a regime such as the one in power today does not follow the Constitution, why would adding more proscriptions to the Constitution change such a regime’s behavior?
“Not a dumb question, IMO.
I was thinking of another question: If a regime such as the one in power today does not follow the Constitution, why would adding more proscriptions to the Constitution change such a regime’s behavior?”
Its quite simple, its about the structure of that Federal republic that enforces the law.
A constitution is like a fortress with great walls of defense standing between each side. Those walls however are pointless barriers if there is no one there to defend them.
When our founders designed this fortress they designed it with the idea of competing interest manning each side of the walls to keep the other side on the other side. Thus retaining the roles and structure of the Constitutional system. But of course not every side was equally interested in defending their part of the fortress, and after the 17th Amendment and civil war the side defending the primary wall between domestic and Federal Government collapse.
Leaving the Federal Side free to cross at their pleasure, hence the fortunate as A federal government became no more, and the people as a result lost their right to vote with their feet.
Now the only real limits upon federal power are the political and practical inconveniences of invading states with armies they don’t really have.
See the Bundy Ranch insolent when BLM at the behest of the Obama Administration tried to turn itself into an army to enforce its edicts. That was at best a political inconveniences but it also illustrates the only real limit to the abuse of Federal power. A minor portion of the citizenry offering local opposition to their ill-prepared troops stomping upon their crops. A rare exception if it works and not a wall but rather a fence with a lone farmer against an army.
The point is an Amendment only works insofar as the practical reality of that amendment is to in effect empower an army to defend the other side of that fortress wall. In short Federal employees should not be the last word on the limits of their own power. And Amending the Constitution as to provide an external veto should enable us to defend that wall.