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.
This has been an enjoyable, and as usual at FR, enlightening exchange.