Comment: Yep - this is exactly why I can't argue for "returning to the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: To paraphrase (see in situ)

Yep - this is exactly why I can't argue for "returning to the

Constitution."

After all, we got where we are today following that path.

Many a case could be made, this IS the inevitable result of following the Constitution, that it was even INTENDED to happen. (though I doubt they thought it would take this long)

This is why I would advocate a serious and fundamental structural change to the Constitution as a solution, or even better, a proper reform of the Articles of Confederation and ditching the Constitution all-together, or a mixture of both.

But to simply argue for "following the Constitution" is a losing proposition.

The Constitution is no more "unfit or broken" than the Articles were, and in fact, a better case could have been made for small reform of the Articles, and simply FOLLOWING them, but instead, those responsible for following them made sure they didn't "work" and then had their case for something more centralized - they had to "settle" on the Constitution, but I think even that in many respects was more than they could have otherwise hoped for when they set out to make the case for change.

WE have to make the case first and loudest with a real proposal.

If we don't - the enemies of Liberty will, and they WILL prevail for lack of an alternative.

When change faces the status quo, change always wins, but if we can offer an alternate change, perhaps we have a shot.