rendered moot. To raise money, the states' Attorneys General now join with the U.S. Department of Justice to sue industry for whatever they can extract (tobacco was the test case to develop the procedures, now comes guns, next will come automobiles, then tires, fertilizer companies, chemicals, housing and furniture for using wood, etc.). Congress likes this system better than the "pass a law" routine because now they get the money and everybody blames the lawyers. The lawyers don't mind because they are not elected anyway. Companies now flee the U.S., placing heavier burdens on those that stay and this will become a vicious cycle. That's the price of government without rules; a country with a living Constitution. . . changing with the wind.
The notion of a living constitution is the most evil of all ideas... a euphemism for lawlessness. This is the verbiage embraced by those (lawyers, historians, politicians, and judges) who wish to take advantage of others. No fair minded person could ever endorse such blathering nonsense. The founders intended to produce a static document... why else provide a mechanism for change?
Applying today's "principles" of government and considering the public's deep seated apathy, MOST of the 17 Amendments beyond the Bill of Rights are totally unnecessary. Except for freedom for slaves and voting AGES, all of the rest are useless. If the XVI (income tax) did not already exist, it would still be permitted by the Supreme Court without review (under the "commerce clause.") If the XVII (direct election of Senators) did not exist, Congress would force the states to modify their election procedures to do it anyway and the Supreme court would declare it a political question.
A lasting constitution MUST be ABSOLUTE. The law of the land. No exceptions, even when it hurts.
That's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the Constitution was written. To a person, the founders lamented the lousy document they had put together, but to a man they understood the absolute necessity of such STANDARDS: A set of rules which were fair because they applied to all, equally. The great majority of the founders despised two things more than anything else:
First, they HATED taxes of any kind, BUT they understood that taxes were necessary. They were NOT proud of paying taxes... They ABHORRED the necessity.
Second, and foremost, ALMOST ALL of the founders were afraid of a federal government. The debates in Philadelphia lasted from May till the middle of September; less than four months. More than three months of that time was consumed crafting and debating clauses to LIMIT the power of the federal government. It was easy to decide what the federal government should do... It was far more difficult to define limitations. Finally, it was decided that if a power was not GRANTED, then the federal government could NOT do it. Exception clauses were agreed to for handling emergencies.
The fruit of their labor worked well for more than 150 years only to be kissed off by an apathetic public more interested in "MINE" than "OURS."
The rich want more, so do the poor -- blacks want more, so do whites -- Hispanics want more, so do Asians -- women want more, so do men -- unions want more, so do employers -- the elderly want more, so do the young -- Jews want more, so do Christians -- Catholics want more, so do Muslims -- and so it goes. This is great stuff for politicians who take pleasure pitting one group against the other and the public loves it. How many more ways can we slice the pie?
"OURS" is without representation.
See The History Professor, for timeline-oriented original documents and factual materials of historical figures and events that led to the founding of America, the evolution of the Constitution, and the political system of the USA.