Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jocose
True. But wouldn't such a bill create more transparency for the public? If certain clauses are being used to pass laws the majority of people are against, couldn't that transparency help create constitutional changes?
|
I don't think this bill would be of any use to anyone who wasn't already well-informed about how the Constitution is used to justify law-making. I don't really expect John Q. Public to suddenly say, "Hey, the justification for the 298th line of H.R. XXXX sounds like an overly broad use of the commerce clause: that justification doesn't work!" So, I don't think this bill would have any affect on the public at large in any direction.
Constitutional changes? First off, I think it is unrealistic to expect Congress to vote to cut out pieces of Article I, Section 8 because it would reduce their own power. We better get in touch with 2/3 of state legislatures! Secondly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the Constitution: the document is as close to flawless as could be reasonably expected. The problem is that the government is taking significant liberties with the written word of the constitution. Someone needs to kill the Constitution again because I want it dead! 
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|