Changing the Rules

The old expression used to be, “If at first you don’t succeed, try again.”  The Democrats have thrown out the old and are in with the “new” expression.  “If at first you don’t succeed, change the rules.”  The announced contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president are outdoing themselves with “giveaway” proposals to various special interest groups.  Among the proposed “rule changes” are lowering the voting age to 16, eliminating the Electoral College and altering the makeup and function of the Supreme Court.  It was obvious from the 2016 presidential election that the Dems and their liberal supporters were poor losers.  For the past two years we have had to endure their childish “resistance” maneuvers such as blocking legislation. staging foolish (and often destructive) protests and convincing RINOs to defect from the party and abandon their conservative principles.  Since the Resistance movement has failed to remove Trump from office, the Dems now want to rig the game for the next election.  Does anyone really believe that Nancy Pelosi (or any other Democrat) really wants to involve 16 yr olds in the legislative process?  The only reason they are in favor of lowering the voting age is to push their socialist agenda.  You can easily persuade 16 yr olds with promises of lots of freebies when most of them aren’t yet paying taxes.  Teens can’t figure out the best choice for breakfast much less who is the best choice to lead the nation.  I do see a significant leap in maturity and judgement between a 16 and an 18 yr old.  Let’s leave the voting age where it is, at 18.

The Constitution writers were wise in choosing the Electoral College so that not one or two states could dictate the outcome of an election.  The argument to chose our president by a simple popular vote is less convincing when you consider that California aside, President Trump won the popular vote of the rest of the nation.  Large cities such as New York, Los Angeles & Chicago should not be picking our president!  Our founding fathers had the insight to foresee such an issue.  Lastly the Democrat’s argument to expand SCOTUS would destroy its primary function as the final interpreter of legislation as it applies to Constitutional intent.  To increase its size would turn it into another argumentative legislative body.  Our current Congress is highly dysfunctional, largely due to its size.  Politicians fight like children over their individual self-interests instead of working for the good of our nation.  I think we could have gotten more done had the founding fathers created a Congress half the size of the current one.  A smaller Congress could have handily reduced our deficit.  The President has already addressed the Dems attempt to change the rules of the game.  Any athlete trains for an event with the rules in mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s