US Constitution

I often confuse people with my politics. I align myself with neither major party. Most often, I vote my conscience, but in a "lesser of two evils" kind of way. In all honesty, it gets harder and harder to vote that way because the "lesser of two evils" seems to be more evil than it used to be. Simply, I find that both parties continue to stray further and further from the Constitution and the founding principles of our great country. I doubt that the founding fathers would even recognize our government as the evolutionary child of what they fought for. Now, make no mistake, I understand that change is both necessary and unavoidable. What concerns me is the shift in principles. In fact, the principles and responsibilities of the Federal Government have evolved so much, that it is even arguable that we are based on the Constitution for little more than parliamentary procedure. If most Americans are really honest with themselves, they have little more than a passing knowledge of the Constitution. They had a semester of learning it in grade school and have likely not looked at it since. How, then, can we intelligently elect officials whose purpose is to uphold the constitution? I propose that we can't...and don't. We elect our representatives based on their political party, social leanings, and fiscal beliefs rather than their adherence to the the constitution. So, is the constitution even relevant to our modern society? I suppose that depends on our willingness to allow it to be the fluid document that it was intended to be. Before the constitution was ratified by the original 13 states, there were such points of contention that 10 amendments had to be made before it could be agreed upon. The framers of the constitution as well as those first 10 amendments (the bill or rights), recognized that the country would evolve and made provision for future amendment, as well as making such statements as, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," [tenth amendment] to cover the inevitable situations that would arise. Unlike the articles of confederation, which added the idea of federal powers needing to be "expressly given" power, the language of the tenth amendment was weaker, giving rise to the overpowering counter-force of "implied powers." The problem with "implied" power is that it is up to the individual who is LOSING the power to prove that it was theirs to begin with. The first game-changing test of implied -vs- expressed powers was probably the Civil War. If the states had sovereignty to make their own laws, and the Federal Government was there primarily there to provide for the COMMON defense, and to regulate INTERSTATE commerce, do those powers not imply sovereignty of the individual state? Yes. but, enough sovereignty to secede? For the first time, the Constitution had a paradox in it. The only way to preserve the Union was to say that the Federal Government had more power than the individual states. Yet, in so doing, it redefined, and (in many ways) negated the tenth amendment. Once the Federal Government had the power, it would continually push the envelop of "implied powers" until the Federal Government became the power-wielding organism that it is today. As is true in all of human nature, once power is given, or taken, or assumed...it is substantially harder to take it away. And so, this is where the Republicans and Democrats are the same: the thirst to be the party with the power. If the Constitution is going to stay relevant, that power will need to be weaned away. Fortunately, it can be. The power hemorrhage can be stopped by the States at a Constitutional Convention. I believe that we need a Constitutional Convention more than we need anything else in this country. More than a certain party gaining control. More than laws and social issues being fixed. Even more than jobs and economic security, I believe that we need a Constitutional Convention. In my humble opinion, the collapse of this country is imminent without a fundamental shift in power AWAY from the Federal Government and back to the States and local municipalities. Although I believe that there are several amendments that need to be discussed at a convention, the applicable one here is adding the word "expressly given" to the tenth amendment. We have been fed a lie for the past several generations, and that lie is that we need the federal government to take care of us. That somehow, we are incapable of surviving without the government there to make decisions for us. As we have slowly believed this lie...and more-so with each passing generations...we have just come to accept that this is the way that things are supposed to be, and that our government ultimately has our best interest in mind. As I've said for many years, 'never trust anyone who makes a living off of you.' You see, I believe in the original idea of the tenth amendment, as stated in the federalist papers, that the purpose of the federal government was for protecting the borders, and regulating commerce between the states, and settling disputes, NOT to be our "boss." Our government was originally powered like a pyramid. The local governments had the most direct powers, unless EXPRESSLY limited by the state government. The state government, then, had the next level of power. The Federal Government was there to settle disputes, regarding the constitutionality of laws. It was no one's "boss." We have to change our thinking. We have to change the taxation system to reflect this. What is the purpose of sending our tax dollars to be filtered through a ravenously greedy system, and then sent back to us by way of credits, subsidies, and programs. We forget the government has no way to make any money, in and of itself. The money that is doled out was ours to begin with. How can anyone in Washington have any real clue about what goes on in Adeline IL? They can't...which is why there are representatives...who serve an entire state or an entire district. We've got the pyramid upside down. We keep the smallest amount of monies and the least amount of control local. Then we give the state more money and more control. Finally, the Federal Government takes everything that it wants. And the truth be known, the Federal Government is so huge that there is really no way to audit how efficient it is. At bare minimum, we know that it is parasitic, as it has no source of revenue outside of the taxpayer. So, is our constitution still relevant? I suppose that it is as relevant as we choose to let it be.