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.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on a few points.
As far as misrepresenting your points, I would only respond that my point 2 was actually a request for clarification on one of your comments. Point 1 was my best assessment, based on one of your earlier comments, that you don’t believe there are any Constitutional amendments worth passing at this time. It was merely an assumption, which I noted at the time, and asked you to clarify whether it was true or not.
With regards to point 3, you responded with
“The main premise is not stated in the Constitution but was stated by Adams that the Constitution was only suitable for a moral people.”
Fair enough, but I think your citing of that point clarifies our disagreement somewhat. We seem to be at odds with regards to whether or not Constitutional restrictions are capable of reigning in bad behavior in our leaders. I think that to some degree, we are confusing two issues - the moral character of the electorate, and the moral character of those in power. If, as it would appear you believe, we’ve reached the point of no return with the electorate, then you’re right. Constitutional government is no longer viable in such a situation. You may be correct on this point. From my perspective, I’m not sure we’re there yet, although who can deny the prevalence of immorality in our country?
My sense is that, for all of society’s problems, the majority, on an issue by issue basis, still side with us. Most polls still show self-described conservatives outnumbering self-described liberals 2-1. The problem, in my opinion, is less an issue of the morality of the people, and more an issue of the morality or lack thereof of our leaders.
You’re correct to say that legislation can’t turn the people into a moral people. But, so often, we see the people supporting the right position on an issue, and their will being thrwarted by the political elites. Just look at how all the Republican Congressmen pretend to be conservative to get elected, and then do the opposite once they are in power. This is not caused by the immorality of the people, but by the system being rigged.
Congress has found a way to subvert the will of the people, and the main engine behind that, IMO, is the power that incumbency has to corrupt. Incumbency encourages elected officials to make getting re-elected, and all the personal power and enrichment that comes with it, their highest priority - instead of good governance, and accountability to the people. Note how many, not all, but many of our corrupt Congressmen and women started out with good voting records but over time, got sucked into the corruption.
On a brief note, I would just make a distinction between two different kinds of constitutional remedies. Those, like a balanced budget amendment, for example, would rely on the fidelity of our elected officials in order to be effective. I share your skepticism that our representatives would comply in good faith. On the other hand, others, like term limits, would restrict the powers of our leaders from without, and would not have to rely on their honesty to be effective. Politicians tend to be conniving and manipulative, but they also tend to be risk averse. They prefer their defiance of the law to be hidden in the form of buerocratic and legislative minutae and double talk. The open defiance of a limit on their term of office, imposed by the states, would require a degree of courage and defiance not present in most politicians.
Best Regards. It’s been an enjoyable discussion.