Forget the Rule of Law. The New Rule of Government: "BUT, BUT, WE WANT IT"!

The two lines I found absolutely astounding and did not hear one commentator address from the President's speech were these (the full speech is here):

"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result? "

What do you think he means by "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do"? Could he possibly mean the laws that govern the land are inconsequential? Maybe even the Constitution shouldn't be followed because it might just get in the way of what we want? Why should we bother with any laws?

It reminds me of children wailing: "But I want it"! The parents know the child cannot learn discipline of saving money and discipline of spirit if all his/her needs are satisfied all the time. The child grows into a miserable, shrill, spoiled and selfish adult. Chaos ensues in relationships as it becomes "all about ME" and there is no framework to reign in impulsive choices and desires.

This is what our nation is evolving into...a President and his administration stating "We're going to implement decisions that we want through mandates, federal grants and regulations. Congress is truly inconsequential".

In education, we see it as...Race to the Top, Common Core standards, mandates to institute trigger options without benefit of legislation, free food and clinics in school through HSS and Dept. of Agriculture...and on and on. We have no way to pay for these programs and many of them are unconstitutional, but apparently that's not a problem.

The administration wants education reform. It doesn't care how it gets it. Laws don't matter. As Van in Blogodidact writes:

But his most telling line, to my mind, was this - in what was said, and the much more meaningful portion that was not said, but was very much implied by it:

"What kind of country would be, this chamber had voted down social security or medicare, just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could, or could not, do."

The easy reply to this is that this nation would be a far more closely knit one, a far wealthier one, one that would be significantly more free, and one with a much sounder rule of law, without those two Article 1, Section 8 shredding programs. Why do you ask? Why did he ask? In hopes of successfully distracting from and ignoring several issues.

• One, that few things are more divisive to society than govt charity; I do not see Social Security or Medicare as kindnesses, but as one of the first measures to begin breaking apart the bonds and responsibilities which had bound us together for so long.
• Two, to point out how annoying, and obstructionist it is having to follow the rule of law is, and how the Constitution should be ignored, so that the President can more easily deliver goodies to his fans.
• Three, he wants very much for the Constitution to be sidelined and ignored, in order to be able to 'do good' for the American people.

Truly we are in a nanny state. " All praise be to the Federal Government for its profound charity and love it is showing to the American people while it takes our money and makes decisions for our lives."