NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
Sign Up
Monday, October 12, 2009
Terry Paulson :: Townhall.com Columnist
America Needs a Constitutional Reformation
by Terry Paulson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Who will you vote For in November?


Yes, America needs change. It needs a "Reformation," not more deficit-expanding, economy-crippling reforms. While many of the world's economies are bouncing back from recession by showing spending restraint, cutting taxes and stimulating private economic growth, we're facing exploding deficits, jobless stagnation and looming higher taxes. While Americans look to government with open hands, much of the world is busy inventing a more profitable future at our expense.

Unfortunately, it may take a prolonged recession, lingering unemployment and more bankrupt states and cities for Americans to realize that more entitlements and more stimulus packages are not the answer. It's time for a secular Reformation to call our country back to the Constitutional principles that made us what we are.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

Out of our abundance and economic success, we have allowed politicians to promise more than we can afford. Now, the wheels are coming off. If you haven't noticed, because of the increase in the numbers of seniors applying for Social Security and the decrease in employed workers paying into taxes, the money going out in Social Security payments is now exceeding receipts. The tipping point projected for 2017 is already here.

In 2008, David Walker, the former US Comptroller General, concluded that the total burden future generations face for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements was $53 trillion. He concluded, "Imagine we decide to put aside and invest today enough to cover these promises tomorrow. It would take approximately $455,000 per American household. . The federal government has essentially written a 'blank check' for these programs." There is absolutely no money set aside to pay these promises, and President Obama seems convinced that the only answer is to add more expensive entitlements.

America has steadily been drifting from the Constitutional grounding our Founding Fathers established. What started with FDR's New Deal has now blossomed into a nanny state where the Constitutional rights that promoted life, liberty, personal responsibility and the opportunity to pursue happiness have been transformed into the right of citizens to have healthcare, welfare and lifetime security. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Terry Paulson, PhD is a psychologist, award-winning professional speaker, author of The Optimism Advantage: 50 Simple Truths to Transform Your Attitudes and Actions into Results, and long-time columnist for the Ventura County Star.

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Terry Paulson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Missing Link
I agree. I have long thought that the position taken by the court in Marbury was a wise one but also that article III was not specific enough in enumerating and limiting the powers of the federal judiciary. I believe that the time is past due for an amendment that directs the court to apply the Constitution and all laws as they were understood by the legislature at the time of enactment. Further, the courts should be specifically barred from imposing any solutions which require the raising or spending of tax money (I am specifically thinking of the decsion which required Arizona schools to spend more on English language learner programs and others like it.) If a law is found to be unconstitutional, they should send it back to the legislature and instruct the executive that they need not or may not enforce it.

If we can enact such an amendment we can then try to repeal the 17th amendment and limit the influence of New York or California money on other states senators.

Missing Link
I have read through all the comments, and while there is a lot of talk about restraining Congress and the Executive to adhere to the Constitution through various methods, no one mentioned the Juduciary, specifically the Supreme Court.

One of the duties of the Court is to rule on the constitutionality of actions taken by Congress and the Executive, as a check on their power.

As we all know, the Court has been failing in this task, though the Marbury v. Madison decision virtually requires it to do so. When the Court has ruled on the constitutionality of Congressional actions, it has invariably ruled in a broad interpretation of McCulloch v. Maryland, expanding Congressional powers beyond that implied by the enumerated powers.

What the answer is to this, to constrain the Court in a strict constitutional direction, I don't know. But I do know that this is key to any Reformation.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Receive updates from your favorite KKOL news station.
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.