There are those who would seek to “fix” the U S Constitution. One attempt is to get two-thirds of the state legislative bodies to convene a constitutional convention to propose amendments according to Article V. When I first heard of this, I understood this to be a means of advancing 1 specific amendment because Congress would not do so. But if that was ever the case, it has not remained so. Such a convention would open the door for any number of amendments and changes which could be very dangerous.
The Real Issue
But the point of this article is not to debate the merits or procedures of an Article V convention. Rather it is to ask a simple question: Does our Constitution Really Need Fixing? The larger context, from which the above quote comes, is attributed to George Washington. It says:
“Should those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness [indifference] or venality [corruption/bribery] of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to show, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.”
Government Must Enforce Law
The Constitution is a frame defining the boundaries and the area in which legislators paint our legal landscape. If corrupt people refuse to paint inside the frame, changing the frame won’t convince them to do so. It is the job of government to enforce the law and require people to operate inside its framework. If the government is corrupt and refuses to enforce the law, changing the Constitution will do nothing to make people behave. The answer is not to change the Constitution, but to remove those people in government who refuse to enforce the law, and replace them with people who will.
Barrels of ink articulating the most eloquent and noble principles, on truckloads of paper, will do absolutely nothing to further protect our freedoms or cure the lust for power brought on by indifference and corruption. The Constitution does not need fixing, but the collective moral condition of government does. Our energies would be much better spent on preparing and electing more men and women of virtue who are willing to humbly serve and govern according to the principles in the Constitution we already have.
Pastor Brad Sherman ask if the Constitution needs fixing? The inference here is that the Constitution is perfect. The Founders did not believe this or why would the have given us Article V to begin with. Why then did we need amendments 13 and 14 of the constitution to end slavery. Most of the citizens of this country understand the system is broken and for 50 years people like Brad have been telling us that we just need to elect better people. I would agree that we do! However, that alone will not fix the problem. In my view Brad is implying that the constitution has not been corrupted over time. Did we forget that Article 3 of the constitution gives authority to the Supreme Court and inferior courts to solve disputes? In solving disputes, the Supreme Court has expanded the power of the Federal Government. Many consider these expanded powers corrupt the original intent of the constitution. Yet every decision they codify into law adds to the constitution and today the constitution is over 2000 pages long. The lawmakers are given and use the US Constitution Annotated as their guide. This tells them what is now considered Constitutional. To make my point we can just use eminent domain abuse as an example.
Pastor Sherman has been on the forefront of fighting against Eminent Domain Abuse for the CO2 pipeline. Remember Brad inferred we do not need to fix the constitution. If the constitution is perfect, why are we trying to establish inferior state laws regarding private property rights? Likely to be ligated in court as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Ruled in Kelo v. New London that economic development is permissible public use under the fifth amendment. That means based on the Fifth Amendment interpreted by the Supreme Court under authority of Article 3 of the US constitution the taking of private property for economic development is constitutional.
Seems to me in Pastor Shermans way of thinking it is settled. We just need to follow the constitution, then why are we enacting laws to restrict the taking of private property for economic use that benefits private for-profit enterprises. In fighting eminent domain abuse Brad Sherman does not want to paint inside the framework of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Will he do as he suggested and just follow the constitution. Most would recognize that in this case the constitution has been corrupted. Until this is corrected it gives authority under the constitution for Federal, State and local governments to take your property for any project they deem as economic development. Do we now just wait for the Supreme Court to correct this error or do we act to fix the corrupt interpretation?
Pastor Brad Sherman speaks for the need for government to work within the bounds and duties enumerated in the constitution. Being that Pastor Sherman is asking all elected leaders to enforce the Law. Is it then fair for us to ask Brad Sherman as candidate for governor to pledge not to take any money from the Federal Government that is not enumerated in the original constitution? If we follow his logic and if he does take money not enumerated in the founding constitution, he will break his interpretation of the law that he says just needs to be enforced. Since the Governor is the highest constitutional officer in the state he must lead in this regard. We should not receive from the US treasury any money or agree to grants with specific rules for education, health care, agriculture and so on as none of these things now regulated and funded by the federal government were enumerated in the original constitution. If Brad Sherman would allow the state to take what is not constitutional as governor would we say Brad Sherman is corrupt and needs to be fixed or will we recognize the Constitution has been corrupted over the last 250 years and may need some guardrails and interpretations put in place to redefine the boundaries the Federal Government has been able thru the Supreme Court to expand taking away our liberties and enslaving us with a tax burden our forefather fought against.
For the most part our elected leaders follow the constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Just because we do not agree with the interpretation does not mean they are not following the law. This straw man argument and fear is what keeps us from enacting the necessary reforms that better than 70% of the population recognize we need.
George Caron
Pastor Brad Sherman ask if the Constitution needs fixing? The inference here is that the Constitution is perfect. The Founders did not believe this or why would the have given us Article V to begin with. Why then did we need amendments 13 and 14 of the constitution to end slavery. Most of the citizens of this country understand the system is broken and for 50 years people like Brad have been telling us that we just need to elect better people. I would agree that we do! However, that alone will not fix the problem. In my view Brad is implying that the constitution has not been corrupted over time. Did we forget that Article 3 of the constitution gives authority to the Supreme Court and inferior courts to solve disputes? In solving disputes, the Supreme Court has expanded the power of the Federal Government. Many consider these expanded powers corrupt the original intent of the constitution. Yet every decision they codify into law adds to the constitution and today the constitution is over 2000 pages long. The lawmakers are given and use the US Constitution Annotated as their guide. This tells them what is now considered Constitutional. To make my point we can just use eminent domain abuse as an example.
Pastor Sherman has been on the forefront of fighting against Eminent Domain Abuse for the CO2 pipeline. Remember Brad inferred we do not need to fix the constitution. If the constitution is perfect, why are we trying to establish inferior state laws regarding private property rights? Likely to be ligated in court as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Ruled in Kelo v. New London that economic development is permissible public use under the fifth amendment. That means based on the Fifth Amendment interpreted by the Supreme Court under authority of Article 3 of the US constitution the taking of private property for economic development is constitutional.
Seems to me in Pastor Shermans way of thinking it is settled. We just need to follow the constitution, then why are we enacting laws to restrict the taking of private property for economic use that benefits private for-profit enterprises. In fighting eminent domain abuse Brad Sherman does not want to paint inside the framework of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Will he do as he suggested and just follow the constitution. Most would recognize that in this case the constitution has been corrupted. Until this is corrected it gives authority under the constitution for Federal, State and local governments to take your property for any project they deem as economic development. Do we now just wait for the Supreme Court to correct this error or do we act to fix the corrupt interpretation?
Pastor Brad Sherman speaks for the need for government to work within the bounds and duties enumerated in the constitution. Being that Pastor Sherman is asking all elected leaders to enforce the Law. Is it then fair for us to ask Brad Sherman as candidate for governor to pledge not to take any money from the Federal Government that is not enumerated in the original constitution? If we follow his logic and if he does take money not enumerated in the founding constitution, he will break his interpretation of the law that he says just needs to be enforced. Since the Governor is the highest constitutional officer in the state he must lead in this regard. We should not receive from the US treasury any money or agree to grants with specific rules for education, health care, agriculture and so on as none of these things now regulated and funded by the federal government were enumerated in the original constitution. If Brad Sherman would allow the state to take what is not constitutional as governor would we say Brad Sherman is corrupt and needs to be fixed or will we recognize the Constitution has been corrupted over the last 250 years and may need some guardrails and interpretations put in place to redefine the boundaries the Federal Government has been able thru the Supreme Court to expand taking away our liberties and enslaving us with a tax burden our forefather fought against.
For the most part our elected leaders follow the constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Just because we do not agree with the interpretation does not mean they are not following the law. This straw man argument and fear is what keeps us from enacting the necessary reforms that better than 70% of the population recognize we need.
George Caron