Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[David Horn]

(09-07-2016, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 02:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Being a fairly typical liberal, I would probably agree with you (if you say) that the president has usurped war-making power, using the phrase "commander in chief" and forgetting the power of congress to declare war.

Since the preamble includes "promote the general welfare" as an aim for the federal government, and allows the congress to make such laws as it deems necessary, I would disagree with you (if you say) that the federal government has no right to collect taxes for the purpose of investing in infrastructure or providing relief and assistance to the needy.

I note that my perspective is not limited to "Boomers."

Words in the preamble should not be interpreted as changing the meaning of specific lines in the body of a constitution.  There was a clear intent to limit the powers of the federal government which the Supreme Court has disregarded.

The first major disagreement on this line came when the north wanted to use federal funds to dredge harbors, while others declared that dredging harbors was not the same as building post roads.  Dredging is not authorized by the Constitution, but maintaining post roads is.  The intent of the authors is quite clear.  These days, any infrastructure improvement is improperly accepted as proper.

Inflating federal power was certainly not started by boomers.  It started well before the Civil War.  A lot of the recent disregard for limited powers started with FDR.  The Great Depression was an urgent emergency.  He couldn't wait for the amendment process.  He just did stuff, struggling with a conservative Supreme Court, often getting slapped down early, but in time as the People kept reelecting him, the Supremes caved in.  I can sympathize with much of what was done in FDRs time.  There was much need.  However, the tradition of ignoring the Constitution was taken to a new level which is problematic.  It isn't just the liberals who do it.

If a Supreme Court full of Scalia style strict interpretation advocates were suddenly to start ruling on the Constitution as written, a constitutional convention would have to be called promptly.  We no longer have an effective written constitution.  I'm inclined to think we should have a convention anyway.  Either party, given a majority on the court, will start pulling stuff like Citizen's United.  This is not the time for a convention.  The country is too divided to agree on anything.  The time for a convention is the 4T 1T cusp, just after the crisis has provided lessons learned, when the mood of the country is no more changes, but set the recent changes in stone.

I don't have much patience for the concept of a rigid Constitution, which, after all, was written in a different age and not suitable to the one we currently occupy.  That said, I'm not sure what alternative would be best.  I tend to favor a controlling document with a 50 year life, that forces a total review of the basic governing rules on a regular basis -- no automatic renewal!  That may not be better, but that or something similar deserves a try. The current document, brilliant as it was, is woefully out of date.