We already gave up on the Constitution
Seidman exercises his constitutional right to miss the point when he blames the fiscal cliff on the fact that revenue bills must originate in the House, or a “grotesquely malapportioned Senate.” But those are the Constitution’s procedural restraints, the equivalent of Robert’s Rules of Order. We got into this mess precisely by flouting its substantive limits on federal power.
Put simply, if the federal government only spent money on its constitutionally enumerated functions, there would be no fiscal cliff. No $1 trillion deficit. No $16 trillion national debt. No $84 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the major entitlement programs and other federal commitments.
It is the constitutional disobedience our man at Georgetown advocates that has the country perpetually on the precipice of financial ruin. He is merely complaining about a too-slow process of dividing up the spoils.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
We should adhere to the Constitution because it is the Supreme Law of the Land and is the document that makes our form of government and our government itself legitimate.
We the People have allowed government to slip its bonds has it has (inevitably) become little more than a powerful gang of thugs pushing people around.
single stack on January 1, 2013 at 8:08 PM
We should emphasis that the document called the Constitution of the United States is not some abstraction that is accessible by listening to the edicts of John Roberts or Earl Warren or some POS professor at Georgetown.
The Constitution belong to us – the citizens of the United States. If we do not stand up and demand that the cretins in Washington conduct their business according to the plain words and meaning of the document then we deserve to lose the debate and forever live in a state of tyranny and subjugation at the hand of Barry Soetoro and his band of merry pig****ers.
Time to get mad, people, time to get really mad.
turfmann on January 1, 2013 at 8:17 PM
Lincoln, the war he waged and its outcome have made the states and their citizens slaves to the federal government. It just took a long time to get to the full effects realized of his efforts.
astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM
Once again, liberals: the Constitution is remarkably negotiable for a document written in stone. If you don’t like something in the Constitution, change it. 2/3 of both Houses, 3/4 of the states.
Can’t change it? That means the rest of We The People don’t agree with you. You know, the people? The great other Thing that you suspect might exist when you aren’t complaining about how the laws don’t change no matter how hard you vote?
Just what are you expecting, exactly? An armed revolt of smelly over-privileged 20-somethings gather together and stop obeying the Constitution in the East Village, and their aura will swell and cover the land, and fruit vendors stop obeying the constitution in the Italian Market, and teachers, and suddenly America is free of the Constitution?
Then what? There’s only one answer to that, and it is: Guns. Authority has to come from somewhere. On the other hand, without the 1st Amendment, maybe you can install a theocracy to give you the legitimacy to make decrees.
HitNRun on January 1, 2013 at 8:24 PM
Couldn’t the War of Feral Aggression be aptly analogized to a husband beating his wife (or vice versa) into submission when she wanted a separation?
What else was really proven by that war?
If we are to jettison the Constitution, shouldn’t the people be well within their rights to jettison the Feral Government on which it is based?
Galt2009 on January 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM
I can’t wholly encapsulate in words how stupid this argument is. This goes over a line that even even Barack and the liberal SCOTUS justices don’t go anywhere near crossing, because the Constitution is the basis for their authority, which includes their authority to make social change.
I mean, if Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan declared that the Constitution was the work of grumpy old white slaveowning men and therefore empty letter, they would be nullifying their own authority to make that determination. The SCOTUS is an organ of the Constitution.
HitNRun on January 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM
Southern by choice22 on January 1, 2013 at 8:30 PM
Give up on the Constitution? Over my dead body.
Othniel on January 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM
The individual cannot do that. But it should have the power to request that the state, which is the signatory of the Constitution, to leave the nation.
Unfortunately, the war Lincoln fought has shown that a state is no longer able to do this. There is no divorce court or procedure for leaving the nation. I think we need to create one.
astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 8:32 PM
Can you imagine the 4th amendment without the 2nd?
kurtzz3 on January 1, 2013 at 9:00 PM
There’s a horrifying similarity between the last ‘divorce’ attempt and the upcoming one: the #1 reason for the separation is because half of the nation wants the fruits of someone else’s labor.
Then it was the undisguised barbarity of “whip and chain” slavery where your skin color meant you could be treated worse than a milk cow. Now it’s a PC-whitewashed utopia where an all powerful government enslaves everyone regardless of color. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another.
IMO the difference in how it starts this time will be that the would-be divorcees start on the defensive instead of on the offensive. Because, no offense, I really do not see a bunch of conservatives with rifles starting out by attacking a heavily-fortified military installation. Something like a spontaneous ejection of all federal authority is more likely.
MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 9:25 PM
Who need a musty old piece of paper when you have a living god for a leader.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 1, 2013 at 9:29 PM
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
single stack on January 1, 2013 at 10:05 PM
FDR was the first US president to now feel constrained in any way by the US Constitution. Since then arguably no other president has felt constrained either.
Citizen-003528 on January 1, 2013 at 10:30 PM
The only thing that proved was a Feral Government making law at the point of gun.
Galt2009 on January 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM