A Constitutional bias in favor of The People
A suggestion for aMending America
A zoo keeper who observes the wild animal in his charge testing, straining, and poking at the fence that is intended to contain the animal knows for certain that the animal is going to escape. An animal that spends its life challenging a fence will find a way through it eventually. The zookeeper’s solution is a mechanism that keeps the animal well clear of the fence. An electric wire or a moat, for example, that prevents the animal getting close enough to the fence to challenge it.
I believe that the people need a mechanism that keeps its government and the occasional wild animal that becomes part of the government, well clear of the fence that the constitution defines. The idea that it is acceptable for the government to right up the limitations set by the constitution, so close that it is a fine legal distinction, whether they are inside or outside of the fence, is absurd.
In spite of the way it is played, government is not a game. It should not be a case of stretching the limits of what is allowed up to the point that the limits would break.
I propose that the test for constitutional should be ‘clearly within’, and to that end suggest that if three or more supreme court judges are not satisfied that a government action is clearly within the limits and powers of the constitution, then the government is required to change its action.