Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

[Professor]

[Professor]

Dylan, look at who is given the power to file revenue bills. The House. These are the people who represent the fewest people, and therefore are the most likely to be able to meet with them and know their feelings and thoughts. They are also elected the most often, meaning they are held accountable more often. Quite literally, Representatives are 3x as accountable for their actions as a Senator, because they are elected 3x more often.

Why single out this power? Because our Framers (is that a bad word these days?) recognized that this is perhaps the single most powerful function of government. The power of the purse. Through it, Congress can nullify any Presidential action or any Supreme Court function.

Of course, as I said, this rule has been interpreted time and again, and no longer has any meaning. The Senate may take ANY House bill, completely gut it leaving only the bill number, and replace it with revenue-raising measures. Clearly, this is outside the intent of the Constitution, but we allow it to happen.

[The Dharma Bum]

[Dylan]

Yeah that makes sense. Seemed a bit odd to me given the Framers' rightful dislike of democracy but I suppose that's why there's checks built in via the Senate and the Executive. Though the former is less of a check now since the Senate is directly elected.

[John Galt]

[Professor]

[Dylan]

its fairly obvious in context what I was referring to, but ok.

[eynon81]

[Professor]

RE my second part, I didn't mean that the application of the law shouldn't be left to judges. They should be free to view the law in light of individual facts within a certain case, and apply the law as necessary. I don't believe, though, that judges should be able to say, "I think this is what the law means, and here's how it applies in this case."

For instance, either all individuals have a right to own a gun, independent of other factors (ie: being in a militia), or they don't. Then, it is up to a judge to decide in individual cases if a person may be stripped of that right (felon, mentally ill, etc.). If it is deemed that ALL mentally ill people shouldn't own guns, then the law needs to be changed. We shouldn't rely upon Judge Smith's 1834 decision that Mr. Insane couldn't own a weapon as the basis that all insane people today shouldn't own guns.

[Dylan]

The legislature addresses maybe 5% of legal issues. What should be done as to the 95% that remains unaddressed? Just ask litigants to sit tight until the legislature gets around to addressing the issue?