There are 38 comments.

1. Inactive
   Merina Smith

   @MerinaSmith

   Post author

   6:15 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 17, 2015

   MLH:Merina, wouldn’t deism be better than what we have now?

   Well yes–deists at least have some humility, unlike progressives, who like to think they are the all-wise masters of the universe.

2. Inactive
   Tuck

   @Tuck

   6:17 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 17, 2015

   Merina Smith:

   …

   I just returned from a trip to Ireland, though, and his behavior there was pretty shocking. Maybe a less brutal Cromwell.

   Yeah, for sure.  He didn’t like Catholics…

3. Inactive
   Merina Smith

   @MerinaSmith

   Post author

   6:19 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 17, 2015

   SParker:

   Hoyacon: Much of the Constitution still retains a great deal of validity/vitality. The problem is that the “important parts” (Commerce Clause, Enumerated Powers, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, etc.) have been damaged beyond recognition.

   I believe Richard Epstein suggested an amendment defining commerce as an activity involving buying, selling and transporting physical objects (you know, like a dictionary does) in one of his podcasts to clear up a boatload of mischief. I’m thinking that could be expanded to a syntax and definitions amendment: Commerce (growing wheat for your own use just doesn’t count); the General Welfare clause (there isn’t one–it’s part of a summary phrase for the actually enumerated powers below it); the Contract clause (there is one–try thinking about it when government at any level thinks it’s kosher to set wages and prices and other terms and conditions for private parties); etc.

   It would at least be interesting to hear the debate before the bloodshed begins.

   That’s a thought–instead of a constitutional convention, some serious work to define terms in a limited way.  I do think technology has made everything incredibly complicated though.  Much as we love it, it allows all kinds of stuff to happen that was never possible in the founders day, clear up till the very recent past.  Humans have not yet learned to manage their creativity very well, because we like to think that if we can do it, we should.  And modern ethics are pretty sorry, especially when coming from those who have turned their noses up at religion.  Those people are scary.

4. Inactive
   Merina Smith

   @MerinaSmith

   Post author

   6:21 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 17, 2015

   Bob Thompson:One of the themes repeated here frequently is that we elect representatives who campaign on commitments to do certain things and then forget about it when they are elected. This is true. I think it is also true that longevity in office erodes the commitment, if it was ever there. I’m a big believer in the Federalism concept embodied in the Constitution and that we have suffered under a century old campaign by progressives to destroy that concept. We need the Presidency and both houses of Congress to make some relatively small moves and then evaluate our prospects.

   Carly Fiorina has committed to no new hires in the Federal bureaucracy if she were elected. That would be a good start. To do that successfully would be greater than the battles fought by Governor Walker in Wisconsin. Then if we could control the borders according to the laws we have would be great.

   We really need to fight through a couple of things like this to see what’s possible.

   I’m an optimistic person at heart and I think you are right that if we could start down the road and see the success, it might be possible to continue down the road.  I do think we must soon come up against the reality of the huge debt, which might prove to be a good thing if it shrinks government.

5. Inactive
   HVTs

   @HVTs

   10:38 AM EDT ⋅ Sep 19, 2015

   Man With the Axe:Maybe what we need now is a constitutional convention.

   We don’t need a “constitutional convention.”

   We had a constitutional convention in 1787 and it produced a magnificent document.  Unless the goal is to abandon our constitution, we don’t need a convention to write a new one.

   We need to amend the Constitution, however, but that’s accomplished within the Constitution (specifically, at Article V).

   The Framers anticipated the problem we face—a power hungry, out-of-control federal government oppressing individual liberty and undermining our ostensibly sovereign state governments.  They didn’t anticipate this would come about through informal Constitutional amendments imposed by mutually reinforcing judicial interpretations, executive regulations, and national legislation.  However, that collusion among federal officials could be the source of oppression was fully comprehended by the Framers.

   The Framers also understood that for those abusing power reform is never adopted; it’s imposed.  Washington will never reform itself.  So the Framers’ Constitution ensured the sovereign people have a mechanism for overcoming Washington, D.C.  This mechanism results in formal amendments which always trump informal amendments.

   So, we need what’s referred to in Article V as “a Convention for proposing Amendments,” but is commonly known as a “convention of states” or an “Article V convention.”

   Some of us are working hard right now to bring about an Article V convention. But we can’t do this without you; please join us here: Convention of States Project.

6. Inactive
   Man With the Axe

   @ManWiththeAxe

   12:36 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 19, 2015

   HVTs: So, we need what’s referred to in Article V as “a Convention for proposing Amendments,” but is commonly known as a “convention of states” or an “Article V convention.”

   That’s what I meant.

7. Inactive
   Merina Smith

   @MerinaSmith

   Post author

   1:11 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 19, 2015

   HVTs:

   Man With the Axe:Maybe what we need now is a constitutional convention.

   We don’t need a “constitutional convention.”

   We had a constitutional convention in 1787 and it produced a magnificent document. Unless the goal is to abandon our constitution, we don’t need a convention to write a new one.

   We need to amend the Constitution, however, but that’s accomplished within the Constitution (specifically, at Article V).

   The Framers anticipated the problem we face—a power hungry, out-of-control federal government oppressing individual liberty and undermining our ostensibly sovereign state governments. They didn’t anticipate this would come about through informal Constitutional amendments imposed by mutually reinforcing judicial interpretations, executive regulations, and national legislation. However, that collusion among federal officials could be the source of oppression was fully comprehended by the Framers.

   The Framers also understood that for those abusing power reform is never adopted; it’s imposed. Washington will never reform itself. So the Framers’ Constitution ensured the sovereign people have a mechanism for overcoming Washington, D.C. This mechanism results in formal amendments which always trump informal amendments.

   So, we need what’s referred to in Article V as “a Convention for proposing Amendments,” but is commonly known as a “convention of states” or an “Article V convention.”

   Some of us are working hard right now to bring about an Article V convention. But we can’t do this without you; please join us here: Convention of States Project.

   Sounds like a good idea.  Also, Charles Murray has good ideas for beating back the regulatory state in By the People.  

8. Inactive
   HVTs

   @HVTs

   2:01 PM EDT ⋅ Sep 19, 2015

   Merina Smith:

   HVTs:

   So, we need what’s referred to in Article V as “a Convention for proposing Amendments,” but is commonly known as a “convention of states” or an “Article V convention.”

   Some of us are working hard right now to bring about an Article V convention. But we can’t do this without you; please join us here: Convention of States Project.

   Sounds like a good idea. Also, Charles Murray has good ideas for beating back the regulatory state in By the People.

   Milt Rosenberg interviewed CM about this new book on 7 July and it is presumably still available among Ricochet’s podcasts. [:-) You’re right, it deserves a serious read (which is true of everything CM writes, of course!).

   My sense was CM is advocating a kind of guerrilla “lawfare” against the bureaucracy. I think we need structural change instead.  What makes the Convention of States effort so important is that it will result in fundamentally changing the rules of the game.  We will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, reduce its power and jurisdiction (by spelling out what the Commerce clause means, for example), and implement term limits on federal officials.  We can’t end federal tyranny unless we amend the Constitution.