So Huck, do you have an answer to the problem of “textual drift” (my term, just made up). Because it’s a serious problem for religions and Constitutions. The text says A but the practice becomes B with supporting authority outside the text gathering over time. I do not have a Constitutional solution . . . and suspect there is not one that is solid. My solution is a moral populace that interprets the rules.
Christ is the solution. Everything else is entrusted to man . . . and man is a sinner and ultimately misses the mark.
It's a good turn of phrase. I wish I could say I have a solution. I would say that the problem is twofold.
a. Implied powers--the Constitution provided for implied powers, whereas the old Articles had expressly delegated powers over. This was an intentional change, and a bad one. Because the question then arises, again and again, is this an implied power? It gets sent to the courts, where the rules of precedent provide the basis for the textual drift.
b. Article 3--there has to be some better way to establish a national judiciary. It is unaccountable. The judicial branch is the source of the drift, and it's a fatal design flaw. There is no appeal. They are co-equal to the other branches and hence untouchable. Precedents from past generations weigh on us and we can't do very much about it.
So, no, I don't have a solid answer except to say that I believe we should have a system of expressly delegated powers only, and a judicial department that is accountable.
My solution is a moral populace that interprets the rules.
My problem with this is that, to me, it's like saying we need foxes that don't eat chickens.