If you don't like it...change it.

The U.S. Constitution. Ratified on March 4, 1789, it has been the supreme law of the land for over 223 years. By 1791, the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) had been ratified and the Constitution has been amended 17 more times since then. The 27th Amendment was passed in 1992. This somewhat unusual amendment, called the "Congressional Compensation Amendment of 1789"  was passed more than 200 years after it was first submitted. The Constitution allows for a process (read Article 5 of the Constitution) for changes to be made and 27 times it has been amended. Amending the Constitution does require clearing a pretty high hurdle. Passage by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress is required to propose an amendment and three-fourths of the States must approve it for the amendment to be ratified. It does not require the signature of the President. The Supreme Court does not need to be consulted in the matter. An alternate method is for two-thirds of the states' legislatures to call for a national convention to propose amendments however, this process has never been used.

There are many Americans (and likely many foreigners) that do not like certain provision of the Constitution. There is a process to change it, though. 33 total amendments have been proposed, with 27 having been ratified. The other six were never ratified by the states. Americans could amend the Constitution to change the requirements for amending the Constitution...but that amendment would require adherence to Article 5.

Congress passes laws that are supposed to be within the scope of what the Constitution allows. In response to lawsuits filed by many states' attorneys general, the Supreme Court recently reviewed and ruled on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as "Obamacare." Considered unpopular by many Americans, the Supreme Court ruled in a very controversial opinion written by the Chief Justice that the so-called individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a fine was constitutional by virtue of Congress' constitutional taxing authority.

Many conservatives believe that Justice Roberts was wrong in his vote which allowed the more liberal justices' vote to prevail 5-4. Justice Roberts said that he tried very hard to find a constitutional basis for Congress' law because he believes that overturning a law passed by both Houses of Congress, regardless of its unpopularity with a large number of citizens, is not something that the Supreme Court should do lightly. I happen to agree with that statement.

We can't have it both ways. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If Americans believe that it needs modification, then change it. It's not easy though. You need super-majorities in Congress and the States. If you don't like a law passed by Congress or you think we need a new law passed, you can tell your members of Congress. If they don't do what you want, vote them out of office. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to do the job that is supposed to rest in the hands of voters.

It is also not  the job of the President and Executive Branch to usurp or overturn or write new laws by virtue of executive order. The Executive Branch is also not supposed to refuse to enforce duly passed laws. If they do this, then you have an opportunity every 4 years to do something about it.

Throwing rocks in the street or shouting at one another on cable TV might be fun but it doesn't change the law. As much as I may disagree with laws passed by Congress, if my side of the debate does not prevail, then I just have to work harder next time to convince my fellow citizens to vote for like minded candidates.

In the news even today we hear about displeasure with the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms...gun ownership) and the laws concerning definition of marriage (among other things.) If you don't agree with or like those laws, change them. But you better have enough Americans that agree with you. That's just the way it works.

To be found in a compromising position

Compromise....it is an interesting word and, at face value, sounds like a noble thing. But the word has dramatically different definitions. One definition is "an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions" as in "the secret of a happy marriage is compromise." (This is the noble definition)

Oops

Then there is the definition "the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable" as in "she would not compromise herself by sleeping with him." (this is the not-so-noble definition)


We hear a lot of talk by our political leaders about the need to "compromise." I'm curious which definition they are referring to. I think they want to convince us that it is the former but frequently give us the latter.


There is the old joke that ends with a woman asking the man at the bar "what do you think I am?" He says "well, we've already established that, now we are just negotiating price." (If you want the entire joke, you can Google it yourself)


Something happens to politicians that stay in Washington (in power) too long. They are almost like prisoners that spend a long time in prison...they become "institutionalized" and forget what the real, outside world is actually like and, in many cases, don't want to return to the "real world." Our founding fathers never intended for our elected officials to become career, professional politicians. Something bad happens...not because they are bad people with initial bad intentions. The institution itself is dysfunctional at best and corrupt at its worst. 

The problem with fixing this is many of us believe that "our" guy or gal in Washington is one of the good ones and should stay. Individually, they may be sound legislators but, collectively, they are out of touch, and hungry to maintain the power that the office provides. The other problem is that, unless a newcomer becomes your party's candidate, you are forced to vote for someone from the other party in order to not vote for the incumbent who needs to leave along with all the others. I'm not sure this will ever be fixed unless term limits are implemented. Even then it will be difficult to change the course for a very long time, if ever. Our politicians are driving us over a cliff and, in the meantime, they are arguing about who gets to ride shotgun.


The uprising that produced the current Tea Party began, not under Barack Obama, but George Bush. It was not about Democrat or Republican or Obama or Bush...it was about our government spending money at such an enormous rate with no end in sight. People said...enough. We are over 14 trillion dollars in debt...and climbing fast. The number is so large it defies comprehension. At some point, it cannot be sustained...we may already be past the point of return. We are paying our Visa bill with our MasterCard and a Ponzi scheme like this would normally put someone in prison. Our representatives in Washington have painfully demonstrated that they cannot or will not fix this crushing debt problem and our grossly punitive tax policy.


There are some things on which I am unwilling to compromise...they are just too important. I wouldn't make a good politician.