Playing by the rules . . .

Government is not a game but the same concepts and rules of conduct should apply.
Consider, if you will, that the Constitution established a “limited government”. That is a government of limited powers and activities. That set forth the “rules” by which the government was to operate and the people would participate.

It was expected that all citizens would be taught the rules; that they would learn them in school and understand their responsibilities and “how the game was to be played.” It became their responsibility as an adult to see that they “lived by the rules” and elected only those individuals to public office who also understood and agreed to abide by the rules.

In any sport, if you fail to comply with the rules of the game, you are either expelled, penalized or otherwise restricted in your participation. Being sure that all participants conform to the rules of the game is generally the responsibility of the “referee” overseeing the game or sport. Such referees do not “regulate” the game, or establish the rules. They simply enforce the rules to which all participants have agreed.

The commerce clause of the Constitution was not incorporated to be a “catch all” for any activity Congress wanted to apply. Rather, it was to be sure that each state played fair and equitably with every other state. Prior to the Constitution, each state had created its own tariffs, trade regulations and duties which they applied to the activities of the other states with whom they interacted. Thus there was a maze of conflicting and somewhat arbitrary procedures that made commerce between and among the several states not only difficult, but in some cases prohibitive. With the ratification of the Constitution, this problem was resolved since the new, federal government was granted the power and responsibility to “regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”

(Art. I, Sec. 8 [3])
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said his job was “to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.” If we do not like the rules that are in place, then we should petition our legislators to change them or introduce new or more acceptable ones. Or, at the next election, vote for those individuals who will perform to your satisfaction. Neither approach requires abandoning the basic requirement of “playing by the rules”. At no point does it grant either the Executive or the Judicial Branch of government the power or authority to enact a “rule of the game.” Only Congress is granted such power, and even that is limited if we live by the rules of the game as embodied in the Constitution, Art I, Sec. 8.

Is Congress playing by the rules?
That’s certainly a legitimate question that also can be applied to the other two branches of government.

Is granting themselves (Congress) unique and exclusive health care and pension plans unavailable to the general population playing by the rules? Art. I, Sec. 9 [8] states, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted . . . [or nor person] accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”. Today, there seems to be a feeling that once elected, they are above it all and can do “as they please”, regardless of the rules to which they agreed upon taking office.

What would happen if we again “played by the rules?” Perhaps we would avoid the disastrous situations we now face.