Replies

The author is right, though not for the reasons he states.

In most countries, when a party or coalition wins an election by significant margin, it controls all branches of government, with possible exception of the judiciary, and can efficiently implement its program. For a party to do so in our system requires the party to win at least two elections in a row, and possibly win elections for 20 years or more. As the article says, you have to get control over four branches of government: two houses of Congress, President and Supreme court.

IOW, if the American people in the next election were to elect a supermajority of conservatives, we still could have little significant change in policy away from our present disastrous course for at least two years, and possibly 20 or so.

This is because the Constitution was designed for a government of strictly limited powers and functions. It is entirely adequate for this purpose.

It is entirely INadequate for running a welfare state that “runs the country,” which is what 50% or more of the population wants. It can only do so by just ignoring large chunks of the Constitution.

Oddly, I happen to agree with the author’s claim that one of the biggest problems is how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. The present system does not in practice inhibit change, in a truly constitutional manner, it rather promotes the ignoring of the plain meaning of the Constitution and especially judicial reinterpretation of the Constitution to promote favored liberal causes. I favor instead an easier amendment process so such issues can be addressed through political means.

I believe we have two options. We can gradually make our way back to a government of limited powers and functions, returning to truly constitutional government, which I favor.

Or we can change our Constitution so that it works more efficiently to provide the welfare state many if not most Americans seem to want.

What I think we can’t do is keep limping along indefinitely trying to provide B with a system that is only suited for providing A.

“I favor instead an easier amendment process so such issues can be addressed through political means.”

What is your proposed “easier amendment process”? As it is, liberal “living and breathing” constitutional interpretation is about as easy as it gets. Under that aegis, the constitution means whatever they say it means in the moment. Why bother to write it down at all?

The answer is to staunchly engage in the political process to make the elected branches adhere to the Constitution and reshape the judicial and administrative state.

Sanford Levinson- Constitutional Faith Princeton U. Press 1988
I suspected when reading it that he was numbered with those on the other side of the House divided against itself.To borrow from Abraham Lincoln ,1858 -as he borrowed from the Sacred Writ. This editorial has served to affirm that first impression.IMO the Constitution would be ok if only the mere politicians -the men governed by ambition more than Reason would only understand it according to the meaning of the terms used as understood when the supreme law of the land was adopted by the people. Problem is we are now decades and more into “progressive” decline generated in large part by Dewey-eyed educators. Beguilers who have addicted the people to to the “promise” of a bright and shining LIE.

The framers intended that the federal government be small and limited in its power. I think we are familiar with the history of tyranny, oppression and mass murder by centralized dictatorial governments. However, state governments have more flexibility. If a state wants welfare and wealth redistribution and the taxpayers agree to pay for it then they are free to implement that policy. If the policy is successful other states will adopt a similar policy. If it is a failure other states will not go there. States cannot borrow and print money to the extent that the federal government can. States must balance their budgets. They must live within their means. States cannot place the tax burden on future generations by borrowing, which is the evil policy of the federal government. The power of the federal government is "borrowed" power. The federal apparatus, employees and agencies etc. are being paid with borrowed money. States can only exercise power that its citizens vote to give it. The state government is restricted in growing its power by borrowing money.
Under our Constitution it would lead to a pathology when the federal government exercises power that is reserved for the states and the people. As Justice Roberts recently stated, states should take back their powers under the 10th amendment and stop giving that power to the federal government.