Professor Neuborne is actually correct, but not for the reason he believes.
The Constitution provided for a strictly limited federal government, with everything else left to the States. It is entirely adequate, as amended, to function as intended.
The problem is that for the last 100+ years more and more people have desired a government that “runs the country” in the way European social-democratic governments do. With the parliamentary system of these countries, a party that wins an election controls both the executive and legislative branches and can quickly put into practice the platform it campaigned on. If the voters don’t like the results, they can elect another party at the next election, and it gets the chance to fully implement its policies.
Our system is specifically designed to keep this from happening. Checks and balances and all that. Fine for the limited scope of government for which it was designed, but just not adequate to “run the country.”
Which means we have just a few choices:
Amend or replace the Constitution to specifically put in place a system that is capable of efficiently “running the country.”
Ignore or “interpret” the existing Constitution so the government can function somewhat effectively at “running the country.” This is what we have done for the last 100 years, more and more as time goes by.
Return to the original intent of the Founders, with the government limited to a few specific functions that can be easily handled by the intentionally inefficient government the Constitution provides. That’s what I would prefer, but it seems a considerable majority of my fellow countrymen disagree.
Yes.
The issue is IMHO, one that cuts to the foundation of belief or the basis of laws.
“Rights granted by man or a Creator”
Rights granted be man have been gaining more and more acceptance over the past 100 years, to be certain, while rights granted by a Creator have lost ground.
It is ironic that both require “faith” in our fellow man.
In the case of faith in government run by people, it seems to have devolved into fear and insecurity.
As for the case of rights by a Creator, the faith is in ones self and certainty of human nature.
Liberals are fundamentally insecure. They are children that have found a political voice. They don’t do the hard work or address the difficult questions that have historically advanced society.
Relativism and their fear of being judgmental is at the top of their concerns.
They don’t trust people that can clearly define an issue.
"Running the country" was probably "running the war machine."
I recall reading David Brinkley's book "Washington Goes To War," in which Brinkley recalls how Washington DC grew from a sleepy swamp town into the center of government that it is today because of WWII.
Once the war was over, all those bureacracies had to find something else to do.
-PJ