Quote:
Originally Posted by Chan
Then let's re-write it!
|
Boy, how I'd love to. I mean, we now have 200 years of data to determine what works and what doesn't, and certainly plenty of blogs/forums with great ideas and willing to give input.
One pretty good suggestion I have heard is that the Const. should be written largely by those who will be governed, not by the class who will do the governing.
Quote:
|
But what you're not understanding here is the intended, very limited, role of the federal government. The issue here is the role of the federal government. If the people want the federal government to have more power than the Constitution gives it then they must either amend the Constitution or replace it with a new document.
|
Then, if the technicalities of putting in now necessary agencies and whatnot is the big sticking point, then, we should do it, if it makes these strict Constittutionalists happier. It'll be unfortunate that to contain all the things government does from A to Z would really ruin the concise nature and elegance of the original, but so be it.
As I've said before, I care more about effectiveness and efficiency than size. Government should be as big as it needs to be to accomplish what the people require it to do.
Quote:
|
It doesn't matter whether they're important, it matters whether they're Constitutional. They're not. The founders rightly put a process in place for the people to amend the Constitution as necessary. So, if the people want the federal government to have the power to establish agencies like the CDC, FDA and USDA, they need to amend the Constitution or replace it with a new document. FOLLOW THE DAMNED PROCESS!
|
Meh. I think you're lamenting a horse that's so far out of the barn, it's approaching Zaire. Government began expanding its powers almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
We value different things. Spirit vs. letter. But, okay, if you thnk it's more important to make the Constitution as complex and thick as the Tax Code, get to it.
Quote:
|
I don't have a problem if the people replace the Constitution with an entirely new document. I do, however, care about the federal government usurping for itself powers the Constitution (and, by extension, the people) didn't give it.
|
We gave it to ourselves in 1781, what's the difference?
But, we'll compromise. Perhaps wording that builds in some flexibiity in terms of executive agency/program/policy creation that requires Congressional approval. This ratified by the states stuff is really laborious and should be reserved for big time Amendments.
How nitpicky should this document be? We shouldn't have to have 50 states' approval for the President to be allowed to wipe himself.....
Quote:
|
Again, if the people want to do that, I don't have a problem with it. But it must be the people that do it and not the federal government.
|
I agree. Again, I have to assert that it's the SCOTUS'S job to determine legislative and executive compliance with the Const, and the fact that none of the agencies and programs I mentioned have been even
challenged on Constititionality leads me to figure that it's considered well within the purview of those branches.
Overall, I stand by my assessment that if it's not explicitly DENIED in the Constitution, it's allowable.