If there is a certain area that’s problematic now, it will continue to be a problem under a new constitution. Governments across the globe have displayed maladroitness under bureaucracy despite all the variances in their charters. Ours is still better than theirs. All of them. Even the French system (talking to The Roker).
To go further, say we change the Supreme Court to have a 10 year term limit, then we may see issues of inconsistency in the court rulings, cases overturned with more frequency. The result: a weaker rule of law.
Or let’s say we set all taxation through the states, which will in turn pay tribute to the federal government, allowing us to diminish the IRS to its proper size of a laptop computer weighing less than 7lbs. The result may likely be a diminished ability of the government to protect the rights of the people, and the states breaking off, such as Texas, finally putting its money where its mouth is.
So I worry that most of the changes that different people on each side are proposing will go down the worst possible path. The benefits are often limited to costs or feels, and not the safety, security, and happiness of the people.
I’m interested in changing the structure only so far as limiting the role of the federal government to regulation of the state governments and protecting the rights of people against states, while leaving police powers and welfare strictly in the hands of the states. At the moment, we see the federal government involved in determining if marijuana is schedule 1, if old people can be euthanized, or creating highway budget rules requiring uniform drinking ages. All of that is bullshit and unnecessary for a government that should be focused on the quality of life, the protection of rights, and a defense against any, even internal, who wish to subvert those rights.