“Mark is wrong! Golly, did that ever occur to you that he is not infallible?”
My defense of the arguments put forth by Mark, and others as well, is not based on the fact that Mark made them. It’s based on the substance of the arguments. The specific criticisms you bring up have been addressed many times, substantively by Mark, who you say you listen to all the time, as well as others. When I substantively try to engage you on specific points you raise, you change the subject.
So lets address these points individualy:
Point # 1
“As to how I feel about amendments, I am not against them..”
Well, it sounds like you are if your basic argument is that it would be foolish to expect that they would accomplish anything. It sounds like your saying, ‘I don’t have a problem with them, it’s just that I think they’re pointless’. If that’s your position then you’re making a basically meaningless distinction.
If I’m mischaracterizing your position on amendments, then fair enough. Tell me which amendments you would be in favor of and which amendments you wouldn’t. If you don’t believe there are any amendments worth passing at this time, then was there ever a time in our history when you feel it WOULD have been worthwhile to pass certain amendments? Is your belief in the futility of passing certain or any amendments at this time, whichever the case may be, dependent on whether they were introduced through a convention of the states or through congress?
Point # 2
“I’m not worried about a “runaway” convention, but I am worried about the level of cowardice in our own camp and how that will cave under media pressure.”
What exactly does that mean? Please clarify.
Point #3
“...but I will question why anyone believes an amendment will prevent bad behavior. Term limits and Balanced Budget are, in my opinion, foolish and unnecessary.”
and
“...Its an outright admission we don’t have good people in government”
The main premise of the Constitution is that we don’t have good people in government, or at the very least, that we shouldn’t assume or count on it.
The Constitution was a painstaking effort by the framers to divide power, and to provide independent, and to some degree antagonistic centers of power that would provide a check on one another so that the acquisition of power, and the ambition and greed that is inherent in human nature would not be allowed to get out of hand. It was an attempt to try to tame the worst parts of our natures and encourage the best.
They knew that a strategy of just electing ‘good’ people was a futile strategy that couldn’t be counted on to prevent tyranny from gaining the upper hand. Even the people’s ability to see clearly and make perfect decisions at all times, when electing their representatives could not be counted on.
Something more, a legal restriction on power from without was needed so that we wouldn’t have to rely on angels governing us to have good government. The main structural problems we see now are the result of new centers of power emerging which the framers hadn’t anticipated - the hyper-politicization of the courts and the career Congressmen and women who spend 30 years in Washington. If they had forseen these problems perhaps they would have devised a means of preventing them.
Their system worked very well for a long time, but almost from day one, there were those who worked to try to undermine the system. They found weaknesses in the system and over time exploited them. The framers gave us a good, solid and robust legal structure in the Constitution but understood that there was no way they could foresee all the specific strategies that the enemies of Freedom would employ to subvert the system. They left it to future generations to address this through the amendment process.
I can’t think of two more important amendments than Congressional term limits and repeal of the 17th amendments. These are specific amendments which would go a long way to breaking up the concentration of power in the hands of professional politicians. And yes, they could be enforced. The states control the election process.
Point # 4
“Actually, I would love to see an Article V convention, right alongside nullification by states and committees to explore secession.”
I don’t entirely disagree with you there, but I would hope that we could right the ship through amending the Constitution before the other options become necessary.
The main premise of the Constitution is that we don’t have good people in government, or at the very least, that we shouldn’t assume or count on it.
The main premise is not stated in the Constitution but was stated by Adams that the Constitution was only suitable for a moral people. That does not demand perfect leaders, just good leaders. If the people elect someone intent on committing crimes on their behalf, there is no possible amendment you can pass to stop that. Limiting government power was the best our Founders could formulate but again, it is only suitable for a moral people.
Term limits will not force immoral people to elect good leaders, but it could expel the rare good leader who does resist the corrupting influence of power. If the people are unwilling to remove bad leaders, then term limits are meaningless as we simply put a constant stream of evildoers in office.
A balanced budget is just plain common sense to any person with any sense of right and wrong: you don't spend what you don't have. An immoral people are not concerned about stealing from this generation or the next. For practical purposes, any balanced budget must allow for emergency spending exceeding income and we can rest assured that every evildoer put in office will see that we are in a perpetual state of emergency. Are the immoral people that elected them going to remove them for not balancing the budget, or will they re-elect them to continue the thievery?
As for the judiciary, the Constitution provides a remedy and note that judges are held to the standard of "good behavior", which I would assert is more demanding than that set for the President. The trouble has always been political back scratching and collusion with the courts to usurp power. A term limit or confidence vote every ten years is a bit long between what could be disastrous rulings. Then again, if we had good leaders they would be far more careful about what appointments they confirm. Something should be done but it must be something a lot better than allowing for 10 year crime sprees.
Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment? Absolutely, but a larcenous public and their elected leaders would never go along with that. In fact the "rich" would be even more dead set against that since many of the rich are in that condition because of government.
Trying to re-tool a Constitution that has been thoroughly trashed by people unworthy of its purpose for self-government is a fool's errand. As clever as anyone may think they are to write foolproof amendments, they are writing those for people who don't care. Those of us who do care, and I definitely include you and Mark in that company, are too few and too civil to deal with an immoral mob. How on earth do you turn child-killers into decent people? You can't but we would be remiss if we abandoned other people who feel as we do.
So I say attack the problem on every front. Give them no rest and boldly resist their attacks. Be prepared for confrontations as well because evil does not go away because we wrote some nice words and passed some nice laws. Separating ourselves from our immoral fellow citizens or ignoring what their minions try to compel must be alternatives. Disobedience, disruption and revolt must be an alternative.