John Stossel has added to his collection of great videos. His latest releases asks whether the Constitution should be amended.
If you watch carefully, you’ll see that I made an appearance toward the end.
My clip lasts only about five seconds, but I used that short segment to say that the main goal should be enforcing the Constitution as currently written.
Note that I didn’t say as currently enforced.
That’s because the Supreme Court, starting in the 1930s and culminating with the horrid Wickard v. Filburn case in 1942, largely abandoned its responsibility to limit the powers of Washington.
Time to rectify that mistake.
To be more specific, I want the Supreme Court to limit the powers of Congress to the “enumerated powers” listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
That one step would dramatically shrink the federal government. No Department of Education., No welfare state. No Department of Agriculture. No redistribution. No Department of Housing and Urban Development.
I won’t be holding my breath waiting for this to happen, but Mr. Stossel was asking what we wanted, not what we expected.
Heck, I should have called for repeal of the 16th Amendment, so we also could enjoy the experience of living in a nation without an income tax.
Before concluding, I should take this opportunity to give some commentary regarding some of the ideas other people suggested in the video.
- Balanced budget amendment – It would be much better to have a Colorado-style spending cap. There is a lot of evidence that spending caps work. That is not the case, however, with rules that seek to limit deficits.
- Term limits – I don’t like career politicians, so kicking them out of office after a dozen years is a good idea. Though maybe this satirical idea for just two terms would be even better.
- Gift clause – I’m not familiar with the “gift clause” provision in some state constitutions, which was mentioned by Christina Sandefur. But it would be great if politicians no longer could provide special subsidies to their cronies.
P.S. I mentioned the horrid Wickard V. Filburn case. The Obamacare decision may be even worse.
P.P.S. As Walter Williams noted, maybe we need another president like Grover Cleveland.
Ransom DeBow
The interstate commerce commission was created Under Grover Cleveland in 1887
[…] Source link Author Dan Mitchell […]
While the erosion of the Constitution accelerated greatly in the 1930’s, it really began in 1867 with Congress creating the first ‘independent agency’, the Interstate Commerce Commission. That the Supreme Court has allowed Congress the creation of agencies that have the power to legislate, enforce and adjudicate any area of human actiivity without recourse to duly elected representatives, executives or judges outside of the procedures specified in the Constitution is unconscionable.
Repeal the 17th Amendment
Senators should be chosen by the state legislators as originally directed by the Constitution. The 17th Amendment made the Senate nothing more than a second house of representatives. Senators are also exceedingly difficult once they have been reelected a few times. This is how we ended up with a Senator over 100 years old in Strom Thurmond; A high ranking Klan member holding onto his seat decades after the civil rights era in Harry Byrd and several other long serving bad senators.
Repeal and replace the 23rd Amendment
Everyone living in Washington DC should vote in Maryland elections and count as part of Maryland for the purposes or representation. The part of Washington DC that was in Virginia returned to that state and became Arlington Virginia, why not do the same with Maryland?
Repeal the replace the 26tn Amendment
Voting age should be put back to 21 years of age. If you can’t purchase a beer or a handgun, are you really mature enough to vote?
[…] How Should the Constitution Be Changed? […]
Mr. Mitchell,
I agree with you.
Kevin
Susquehanna County, PA
Sent from my Behemoth Dell 690
100% in favor of repealing the 17th amendment
[…] Is Wrong (Again): Artificially Low Interest Rates Created Bubbles – Frank ShostakHow Should the Constitution Be Changed? – Daniel J. MitchellStocks drift as traders remain on recession watch – Yahoo FinanceLa […]
I vote we purge the 17th amendment. It is at the root of MANY of our problems. It would in effect cause term limits at least in the senate, as each newly elected state house would then appoint their (newly) chosen senators.
The founders intended the senate to be directed by the states- senators to be at the whim of the state’s dictates for how they should vote. Once they became popularly elected, they assumed the roles of miniature presidents- with longer and eve potentially unlimited terms. They act (as do most representatives) as if their arrival in DC means they now work for the establishment that is DC. Like joining a company with its own set of rules that are not the constitution.
The government should be prohibited from causing harm to human beings. Discipline is necessary and helpful and does not require harm. A suspension of social and economic privileges should be part of the reset needed to set things right.
It’s a fantasy to believe that the Constitution is written to have the Courts act as a brake on government power. The idea of judicial review was debated in the Federalist Papers and Madison didn’t agree with it. SCOTUS saw their chance to acquire power and ironically took it on a case involving Madison. And how do they use that Power? Not by limiting government power but by requiring the government to follow their own rules! Essentially, the government is allowed ALL power as long as they follow their rules.
[…] How Should the Constitution Be Changed? — International Liberty […]