What's wrong?
This may simplistic but I think the problem is Congress isn't following the rules and we have let them because of perceived self benefits. They've used the divide and conquer concept. No big affronts (at first) to any one thing and thus the populace is so divided there is no coordination of efforts to correct them. You can't just stand on a principals such as "it's against the law" (Constitution) or you're branded as a radical. (Ron Paul?)
In a chain of logic one wrong step and you can prove anything. When you get to an erroneous conclusion you tend to look at the preceding step to figure out what happened. The conclusion my be so far removed from the error step that you never connect it to an absurd conclusion.
It's like a forest infested with multiple ailments, such as bugs, fungus, and erosion and we're arguing about individual tree problems. The forest is sick! The bugs are only symptoms.
Look at this (have some time):
http://www.article-5.org/ Kirk, you'll like the headline.
It appears the states on several occasions have called for a Constitutional Convention as per The Constitution and Congress has ignored them. Recent ones are Term Limits and A Balanced budget. The call is still active.
There is a total assault on The Constitution and the whole of the
powers that be don't want to give up their control. Historically that's the nature of any government. That's what they do. The founders knew that and put in numerous checks and balances. Which are being eroded away as we sit and watch.
Recent examples:
The first Bailout Failed to Pass the House. That should have been the end of it. The Senate took up the issue, passed a bill and sent it to the House where it passed. Yet The Constitution says ONLY the House can initiate money bills? They did it with smoke and mirrors.
The Supreme court has ruled that gun ownership is an individual right knocking down DC gun laws yet DC is at it again trying to pass restrictive gun laws. Yet Congress, sworn to defend The Constitution, is charged solely with the governance of DC, does nothing. Abortion is the law of the land because of a Supreme Court decision, why not lack of gun control.
The Constitution has been called a
living document by people that deem it open for interpretation. What it should mean is it's alive and well and means what it says. Next time you hear that term ask how the speaker defines
living.
DC has been granted representation in Congress. The Constitution says ONLY states may have representatives. Numerous suprem Court decisions support that. An amendment to The Constitution allowing the representation was proposed and was not ratified by the states. Doesn't that make it the law of the land. Yet Congress passes this law when they are supposed to be defending The Constitution. (Bought off the Republicans with an offer of adding one Representative for Utah).
We argue about how taxing the rich more or less. Maybe the questions should be whether to tax or not.
We argue about whether to spend money on food stamps or to fund schools. Maybe we should ask whether the Federal government belongs in the welfare or education business at all?
The States moan because the Feds have their hands in everything and yet will not require Congress to live up the Constitution as written for fear of loosing Federal monies. This is like a drug addict not turning in his supplier for cheating him because he'll loose his drugs.
As a side note: Several of the state Governors are not signing up for the some of the stimulus funding. They are being condemned by (mostly) Democratic forces for letting their
principles get in the way of taking the money. Without principles what have got left?
