congress vs. the founders

Last week, Senator Sherrod Brown (Democrat, Ohio) put Harry Reid's version of healthcare reform in a historic context:

“I don’t think in the end, anybody here in our caucus wants to be on the wrong side of history, wants to kill on a procedural motion, something as important as this."

In Congress, egos are not just personality traits -- they're entire personalities.  Every President is concerned with his "legacy."  Obama wants to be the next FDR.

Similarly, the Constitution provides for two methods of proposing amendments -- through a convention called by two-thirds of the states, or directly by two-thirds of both houses of Congress.  To date, all successfully ratified amendments have originated in Congress.

I honestly believe that each Congress likens itself to the original founders.  Where the founders were able to forge a remarkable Constitution, at least some in every subsequent session believe they are in a position to rethink it; to correct it.  Obviously, those who describe our Constitution as "a living, breathing" document feel qualified to rethink the whole document wherever it proves convenient.

But the founders of the Constitution had a very different perspective.  They were not looking out, from a central government, seeking the best model to wield power over states.  Even those who advocated the strongest central government were doing so as representatives of specific states -- states where their respective appointers had a vested interest in their own, state-level authority. 

Writing the Constitution was like the states dipping their toes into cold water.  Every participant was there to protect something warm and dry back home.  None -- none -- had been sent to Philadelphia to surrender their state's autonomy.

Somewhere between the 16th and 17th Amendments, those toes in the pool started telling everyone else what to do.  During that time, the federal government acquired the ability to give the product of any man's labor to any other man -- or even to entire states if necessary to purchase power.

Fast-forward to the new "Louisiana Purchase."  A tiny number of leading Senators, with no particular regard for those who actually pay taxes, seizes hundreds of millions of dollars from 49 states and funnels it to the 50th.  Not for "the general welfare."  Not because of "the commerce clause."  Because they need one more vote to reach the critical mass to pass some other redistribution scheme.  And you thought Wall Street's derivatives were confusing!

The fable about democracy being two wolves and a sheep is playing out before our eyes.  The Louisiana Purchase is a promise, regarding first pick of the loin chops, given to Mary Landrieu in order to secure her agreement to begin the slaughter.  How do you defend against this, when they're using our money to buy each other's approval to take our money???

I know these people think they're reshaping the Constitution.  But couldn't they at least try the one we've already got?

Comments

[Dagny Taggart]

"What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and what you want it to say? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text." - Anton Scalia

Either we like the Constitution and think it works (we do and it does) or we don't. I hate people who are acting under the guise of "interpretation." A sixth grader can understand the document. I don't think there's much to interpret.