Actually, the term predates our Constitution... and in fact was referenced by its writers.  Madison, Federalist 47:

The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry.... This great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty.

This is relevant to the thread because... well, we're comparing written and unwritten rules, and because Montesquieu and Monopoly both start with Mon. 

If you ask them, they do too.  Basically, the British constitution is the way things have always been done and the way everyone knows they are still to be done.  Whether written in one document or not isn't relevant: unwritten but universally understood and believed rules are no less important than written ones.

Surely, as long as the IRS has been around, and as many libertarians and rich people as there are in this country,somebody has tried this before.  Surely.

Somehow, it must not have worked.

Yep, we played that way.  Although I think we might have used some variation on it.

Who cares if Free Parking is in the rule book.  It's how the game works.

Monopoly rules are more like the British constitution than the American.

 Ending slavery (though they would regret some of the associated events) and reaching a point where the vast majority of white Americans would quite willingly vote for a black presidential candidate, if he shared their views.

The endurance of the Constitution.  Conservatives talk about its erosion, rightly, but we still follow the basic pattern of government it established.  We forget how remarkable that very fact is.  We still transfer power peacefully, and we still have a greater degree of freedom than most people in the world experience today.

Facing down the evils of the Nazis and Soviets.  This may not have been the role many Founders envisioned, but it was the one God had for America in history -- and in spite of many serious failings it was accomplished.

If you're a good liar and have a thorough and dangerous agenda, the tendency to lie is more dangerous.

If your bureaucracies are corrupt and will take advantage of your weakness, incompetence may be more dangerous.

He wasn't really repentant.  That is what is most troubling.  Ongoing, deliberate, deceptive adultery is not a "mistake" as he repeatedly called it, and abandoning your wife to marry your mistress is no way to make it right to your family.

The point you didn't mention, but that I think is also true, is that focusing on the big picture is probably politically smart, too.  You're not persecuting anyone; you're not making it a partisan issue.  It protects you from looking like you're hoping the scandal goes as high as possible, like your goal is to bring a President down.  But it really doesn't matter how high it goes up: it's actually probably scarier if it really was low-level.

Of course Congress has to do its job, too; firing a few people isn't good enough.  I don't necessarily have a problem with Boehner's term; he was basically insisting that the administration take it seriously.  That's his job. 

Also: whatever level it started at, there were bureaucrats (for one) abusing their power.  President Obama will leave office in 2017; unless they face other consequences those people will still be there, undeterred by the removal of a few scapegoats.

The line that should be repeated over and over -- perhaps the 2014 campaign slogan -- should be something like "Big government is dangerous." 

This group of politicians, as Kevin Williamson pointed out on NRO, will be gone sooner or later, but the IRS won't. 

It's a good reason toconsider marriage. 

It will not be wise in every case.  But it does have one important plus -- it puts responsibility on the man. 

Well said.

Is success in the free market itself a sign of virtue?  I'd argue that it is at least generally the result of certain virtues: persistence, plain old hard work, etc.  Granted, sometimes that success comes with other moral failings, and sometimes those other failings ought to make the success pale in comparison.  So keep it in perspective: God, family, country -- these should be valued above financial success. And judge wisely.

But if "morality exists apart from any system of rewards" markets can be moral or immoral regardless of their system of rewards.

 I'd argue that markets are good -- certainly better than socialism -- not only because they work better, but because they're closer to how God intended it. 

Here's another way of putting it: it is the most moral system for that part of life that deals with production, trade in goods and services, provision of physical needs, etc. If someone values that part of life too highly (neglecting their family, for instance), that's their personal moral failing and has nothing to do with the morality of the system.

ABCNews.com headline (literally, top headline on the page):  Philly Abortion Doctor Guilty in 3 Babies' Deaths.

BBC blurb (also currently top of the screen):

A Philadelphia doctor is convicted of the first-degree murders of three babies born alive and killed with scissors in illegal, late term abortions.

(Emphasis mine, obviously.)

But how is that the measure of morality?  Isn't the very definition of altruism doing good without the probability of reward?  Therefore by rewarding it -- if that were possible -- it would make it no longer altruism.

Your worker above who leaves to visit his dying grandfather is presumably also leaving his family behind.  His trip might also mean cancelling a long-planned night out with his wife.  Yet we'd call his faithful marriage a moral good, even if it did not reward his altruism towards his grandfather.

All these things -- loyalty to parents and grandparents, faithfulness in marriage, diligence in work, charity and volunteer work, etc., are good in themselves.  Not all are equally important, and any of them taken to excess can become detrimental. But in themselves they are good. 

If California decided to allow immigrants to vote in state elections (at least as likely as NYC) would it still be a stretch?