Originally Posted by spence
The problem with the strict view is that there's no do-over.
A formal, textual reading of the law is the only way it can be applied consistently and uniformly. A law that can be "interpreted" in two ways (or more) is not a law but an opinion. A law that can "mean" whatever you want or is expedient for the moment, or the whims of rulers, is a meaningless conglomeration of words which create a legal patina for tyranny.
And there is no "do-over" in textual understanding either of legislation or the Constitution. For the latter, it is an adherence or return to it's principles. You misunderstand this in the same way you misunderstand, as you have often put it, "there are no mulligans." In golf, from whence the expression came, it is, as you say, a "do-over" to replace an errant shot. But in proper golf, again, as you say, "there are no mulligans." You count the bad stroke, but you don't, if you're competent, keep doing the same thing. You correct the flaw in your swing that caused the errant shot--usually by going back to basics. Likewise, having strayed from Constitutional governance to errant tyranny, you don't continue the mistake, but you return to basics--the Constitution.
Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.
Not as possibly as our unlimited Federal Government has led itself into its own bloated, dictatorial state, which, in turn, has also led to bloated yet starving States who mimic it and depend with subservience on its leadership and mandates.
The nearly 150 years of Constitutional adherence before we were transformed into the Progressive administrative State, shows no evidence that a limited Federal Gvt. would lead to bloated, inefficient States. Nor does it show evidence that it would lead to the present bloated Federal Gvt. Bloating was not a problem at either level. the people, then, had more influence on State Governments than they now have on the Federal Gvt. which is probably a reason for less bloating. And the nation grew rapidly and exponentially during limited Central power. The evolutionary power of a free and diverse people, no doubt, was a contributing factor. Had the States retained power against a limited National Gvt., they would now have had to accede more to their constituents and less to a Central power, and would have maintained a more diverse, flexible, innovative, and evolutionary status, thus more likely to succeed, rather than being submissive to a one-size-fits-all Central power whose mistakes will be expanded rather then corrected. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also, remember, the States cannot print money, so cannot so carelessly amass multi-trillions of debt. States can financially fail leading to necessary correction. The Federal Gvt. does not allow itself to fail. It just keeps spending and can't be stopped.
Remember also, that, though the Founders wanted limited central power, they did not want a weak Central Gvt. They wanted a strong National Gvt., but that strength had to be limited only to those powers granted in the Constitution. Within, and only within, those limitations was the National Gvt. all-powerful. That is why it is NECESSARY to limit the scope of Central power. When Progressives in Congress and the Presidency created agencies with powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and Progressive judges "interpreted' key clauses to allow such agencies to stand, the Federal Gvt. appropriated nearly all the powers, including those reserved to the States and the People with the exception of some vestiges of the Bill of Rights that can, in the future if necessary, easily be "interpreted" to violate some clause such as the Commerce clause. That is the expanding tyranny that we now face, and most people don't realize what has happened. Nor do they care that much so long as the Government maintains a pretense of benevolence.
You have mentioned that all that is needed for correction is for our government to act responsibly. That a few structural corrections would suffice. I asked what those corrections are, but you didn't respond. This would be a good a time as any to do so.
My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...
If it's prudent is another issue and a political one.
-spence
|