Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
(Post 1578796)
Now if he wanted to reference "Promote the General Welfare" he might have a point.
|
I've never understood that argument from either a legal or a philosophical perspective. It hardly seems likely that the founders, after arriving at a compromise that took so many steps to limit the national government by granting it
only the enumerated powers, would then throw
one thing in there that you can cram anything through.
In any other legal argument, that would never fly because it is obviously contrary to the intent of the law, but it's allowed as justification for legislation because legal precedent was set by two major cases -
Marbury v Madison and
Missouri v Holland, neither one of which makes any damn sense whatsoever as far as judgements are concerned, but were supported by propnents of the "Living Constitution", even though the term itself wasn't coined until the 1920's, I think.
The argument is that the Constitution was intended to be a document that would maintain contemporary relevance, and that is true, but that's why there is an amendment process. There's also a good reason why that process is so difficult. I simply cannot fathom how any reasonable person would believe that the concepts of "enumerated powes" and "all other powers not listed belong to the states and the people" leave some kind of room for interpretation unless they just don't care what the Constitution says and are too short on integrity to just say it.
Quote:
Why can't we have a test on the constitution that all our congresscritters must pass?
|
Most of them would pass it. Most of them are legal professionals who know damn well what the constitution stipulates because constitutional law is a required area of study for just about any legal subset, unless you're specializing in foreign law or something. Even with this knowledge, they are still possessed of the desire to use our founding principles as a doormat because the system rewards them for doing things that make them popular and well-funded; like giving free stuff to idiots with a vote and helping lobbyists for companies that are too immoral and/or worthless to compete properly.
Even worse, then congress would be limited to lawyers, and we have a preponderance of them as it is.
Quote:
Doctors need to be certified, lawyers need to be certified. But congresscritters, probably the most powerful group of people in the nation.....no test.
|
I think I have a good test for them. I suggest that we take away all their power except what is specifically enumerated, and then we pass a balanced-budget amendment that requires them to stay in the black and also limits taxation except in cases of war or national distress. I'd even be happy to accept current levels of taxation with the exception of the corporate tax, which needs to be way lower, or better yet, gone. The market is powerful, and the day will come when the standard of living outpaces the tax rate, just as long as it doesn't get higher and the dollar isn't destroyed by abundance and bad credit.
That would keep them honest because nobody is going to throw money or time at a Congressman who has no power other than that which is already clearly outlined and has no money to give out. Problem solved.
As long as I'm dreaming, I'd also throw in a requirement that any congressperson who votes for war must have at least one serving immediate family member in combat arms, abdicate and enlist themselves, or have no family at all. That ought to fix the whole "uneccesarry wars and international resentment" problem in about 5 seconds flat.
Finally, I'd pay them more. Quite a bit more. Yeah, you just heard me say that. Good salaries attract good, skilled workers, and we need them. Even better, they discourage attempts to find other sources of income. My hope is that the increased pay will offset the loss of power and that some actually skilled and properly motivated civil servants will be incentivized to throw their hats in the ring. Good companies pay exorbitant sums for CEOs because there is no other way to attract competent people. We could use a Warren Buffet or two at the helm of a newly efficasized (hmm..that's not a word, is it?:oops:) national government.
Of course, were it in my power, I'd probably do even more, such as abolishing a lot of expensive agencies that do little for what we pay for them and aren't constitutionally mandated. No entitlements, I think, not without more reform. I'd abolish the Fed, for sure.
Not ever going to happen, but I think that overall this is a really good plan, though I'm not sure on the pay part. Maybe a new system of districting and losing the "winner-takes-all" system would achieve the same result at less cost. No test required and no twisting of the law feasible; the system gets the right people into power with minimal effort involved, and even if it breaks, they can't do much harm.
