Great "Part 2" to add to the superb "Part 1." Thanks for your insights.
Keeping consistent with my own addicted mindset about constitutional purity (I'd argue that sometimes dogged pursuit is needed [although my wife would probably disagree, bless her ever-patient soul]), I'll respond to your passage:
"The Founding Fathers, understanding human frailty, gave us a Constitution with checks and balances designed to prevent abuses of power."
In other words, perhaps it takes an addict who pursues an ideal (to turn a personal addiction that may be self-detrimental into a positive overall) to make a positive change in a deep-seated societal issue that is overall harmful.
Checks and balances are good, but so much better was it that the Founding Fathers went so much further, delegating only named federal powers that could be implemented only using necessary and proper means (reserving all other allowable governing power to the several States [and reserving to the people any powers nowhere allowed government]).
"Checks and balances" alone do not foreclose the idea of three tyrants (Congress,/President/Court)--of inherent power--each jealously battling one another for supremacy, trying to stop the other two from stealing what the first thinks is theirs.
"Checks and balances" typically only refer to the three branches of government. Now, if it were to include checks and balances between We The People, the States, and the federal government, at least then we are getting somewhere.
Barry, your presence and writing are essential for that “critical mass” to form.
Vincent, I appreciate the kind note!
Great "Part 2" to add to the superb "Part 1." Thanks for your insights.
Keeping consistent with my own addicted mindset about constitutional purity (I'd argue that sometimes dogged pursuit is needed [although my wife would probably disagree, bless her ever-patient soul]), I'll respond to your passage:
"The Founding Fathers, understanding human frailty, gave us a Constitution with checks and balances designed to prevent abuses of power."
In other words, perhaps it takes an addict who pursues an ideal (to turn a personal addiction that may be self-detrimental into a positive overall) to make a positive change in a deep-seated societal issue that is overall harmful.
Checks and balances are good, but so much better was it that the Founding Fathers went so much further, delegating only named federal powers that could be implemented only using necessary and proper means (reserving all other allowable governing power to the several States [and reserving to the people any powers nowhere allowed government]).
"Checks and balances" alone do not foreclose the idea of three tyrants (Congress,/President/Court)--of inherent power--each jealously battling one another for supremacy, trying to stop the other two from stealing what the first thinks is theirs.
"Checks and balances" typically only refer to the three branches of government. Now, if it were to include checks and balances between We The People, the States, and the federal government, at least then we are getting somewhere.
Enough rambling--thanks for your valued insights!
Matt, Thanks for the kind words.
Your excellent addition to my essay gives us much food for thought.
Loved reading this, as always, "brain food", thank you sincerely, Barry.
James, I appreciate your generous words. Thank you.