I stand corrected- When I said “the founders” I was using shorthand for “the majority of the founders”.
To me that’s sounds a little like “this airplane has two fail safe systems- we could get a little better fuel efficiency if we disable one.”
I’m not disabling one, I’m replacing one. Look, stop playing with metaphors and tell me the specific part or parts of my plan that you think is unworkeable, inefficient or dangerous.
I’m not considering whether it is workable or not, and I agree it probably would be more efficient if it is workable. However, the danger would be a muchgreater concentration of power in the hands of the Federal government. I don’t have major problems with the way the Federal government is operating right now. But that doesn’t mean such will always be the case. As it is now the influence of the feds is curtailed by the fact that so much of the governmental sphere is in the hands of people elected in the States. If there comes a time when the President and Congress are both controlled by the same party, all it would take would be a few timely Supreme Court nominations and the checks and balances between the three branches of the Federal government would be mostly an illusion. The only check on unrestrained government abuse would be the Division of Powers between the Feds and the States.
I guess this is a danger if one presumes that there will someday exist a political party that has one agenda with all of its members moving as one towards that goal. Of course, when this happens it will only be on page eight of the newspapers, the first seven being taken up with the news that hell has just frozen over.
Funny, I’ve read microfilm of 1933 newspapers and I don’t recall seeing those seven pages about hell freezing over.
BTW, in case my semi-cryptic reference is confusing- I’m talking about Nazi Germany, nit New Deal America.
And Godwin wins again.