Most of the candidates are speaking about change. Either side of the party is talking about change. But the fundamental question that the voter has to ask: Is the change that they are espousing and bringing about founded on any constitutional principles or are they simply giving us change for change's sake and change that does not have any constitutional powers or rights given to the Federal Government?
I suppose Garrett doesn't believe that the consent of the people is the basis of the legitimate authority of government, as Alexander Hamilton articulated in Federalist 22. The Founders firmly believed this, which is part or the reason they included "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" in the First Amendment.
Redress is defined as "the setting right of what is wrong." Most of America understands we're headed in the wrong direction. Yet when we ask our representatives like Garrett to deal with it, we get form letters with misleading rhetoric. We also see votes out of touch with what we want on matters large and small. Then of course Garrett delivers the mother of all insults to us as constituents: vote flipping at the behest of special interests.
Change. Yeah, we want it. And if representatives like Garrett refuse to budge and work with us as his constituents, elections become the ultimate form of redress. And that is grounded in the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment