It is a recipe and a specific formula. It has provisions contained within it for revision, with rules, mind you, that were expected to be utilized when revision was warranted. It has limits to the powers of that Congress, but we've been through that before. I've been Googling for a good site to list the laws those first Congresses passed, as well as the judgements of the Supreme Courts, as I expect those will clearly show how the people who wrote it intended it to be applied, ie - Ed's enumerated list with a 10th Amendment, or Bear's they can do anything they see fit with a moot 10th Amendment. I expect to find that Ed is correct, but somewhere around the New Deal or a decade or two before, the enlightened socialists took over.
Actually it was the three Republicans [1921-1932] just before Roosevelt that started the ball rolling. [I love trivia].
It cannot be both a specific formula AND a document that provides provisions for revisions.
And don't get me wrong, I have never believed that "anything goes". I am a strong believer in Checks and Balances and a strong Constitutional Supreme Court. It is why I am so offended by the highly weighted political appointees that have been sprinkled on the court in the past quarter century. That court needs to be the bedrock Check and Balance to insure that Congress or the White House can't wander too far from the direction of the Republic.
With that said we have the Democrat Republic that we have. It has evolved, specifically through the rules of the Constitution to give us what we have at this point in time. Challenges have been made to question whether we can declare war without being threatened [apparently we can], whether we can levy an income tax on an individual's wages [again, it appears we can do so effortlessly], to run up debt with impunity [yeppers].
We can, as a government set up ALL the necessary infrastructure to run the country as it is now run. Most, if not all have been tested in court, either by opposition party, Executive, ACLU or private party. The MacDaddy of courts does not have ANY pending cases that suggest that our government is illegal.
I talk to a lot of young adults, many of whom are pissed at the system. Many are not registered to vote because they think the system is broken, that the system does not represent them. The thing that I tell them all [and a lesson I learned myself] is:
- that you cannot rage against the machine from the outside.
- you cannot simply declare the system broken, throw rocks at it and expect changes.
- you cannot simply say the current system sucks and a different system would be better [unless you have really REALLY good data and a plan to back that up with numbers and hard analysis].
- you cannot fix the machine without getting inside and getting your hands really dirty.
That is what this is going to take. Lots of people rolling up their sleeves and fixing the system that exists. If nothing else results, the system would then be more streamlined and more conducive to transitioning to a states based system should the need still be felt.