Only four of the nine (Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Scalia) seem to take their job seriously as arbiters of the Constitution. The rest are just ideologues.

Don’t sell yourself short. I, for one, think this is an idea whose time is coming. It will take some time to make it happen. Just as Rome was not built in a day so too will time be on our side. We must have a long view of history and remember that this statist takeover was accomplished one step at a time. Each step, on its own, was non-threatening so it was allowed to happen. Each step was one more accomplishment toward a goal unperceived by those who did not have a copy of the playbook. Now it is time to return to the playbook given to us by the Founding Fathers, The Constitution of The United States. The CCO is the way to make this happen.

Here is a suggestion of another member of congress who may get on board with this idea, Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan’s 8th Congressional District. See: http://mikerogers.house.gov/Default.aspx and watch, again, his opening statement on Heath Care Reform.

Like you, probably, I have been observing politics for a long time. In fact, I have had an unnatural interest in politics ever since watching the Watergate hearings on TV with my then-liberal father when I was in the first or second grade. Based upon the inevitable cynicism that comes from 30+ years of watching American politics, I have no expectation that many politicians would sign on to this idea. But I do think the CCO could be used effectively to provide a clear contrast between the two sides, much like the Contract With America did in 1994.

It seems obvious that the stakes are so much higher now than in ’94 and our empty-suit president is proof that we cannot support non-conservative, non-constitutionalist people in the GOP. If our side does not provide a clear *different* choice that contrasts with the other side, the myrmidon voters easily get enamored with shallow shiny objects like a Barack Obama.

My CCO idea could be used by some sharp, anti-statist politicians to demonstrate how bad the other side is. I could see someone like Michele Bachmann or Jim DeMint leveraging on something like this simply to illustrate the problem in a clear form.

Now, to get someone to notice this idea is the next problem…. I Tweeted it, and replied to Bachmann and Levin on Twitter with it, but they probably get so much noise that it got lost in the crosstalk.

Or maybe it’s just not that great an idea at all! :^)

At first thought I would have thought you have lost your mind. Then I had the second thought when I read your proposal for the Congressional Constitution Office, or CCO. Your sanity has been restored. The litmus test of Constitutionality should slam on the breaks of this runaway train of stateism that is taking over our country.

You have suggested it be modeled after the CBO as an independent nonpartisan agency. That is a good suggestion. Here’s the rub, the CBO was created by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. An act of Congress! I just don’t see this Congress being willing to allow such an oversight agency to be established. It will stand in the way of too much of the statist’s efforts to centrally control our country. Although that was pessimistic (pragmatic) I think that the CCO is an idea worthy of the fight. I recently had the thought that all legislation needs to be exposed, publically, to exactly the kind of examination that this office would do. This task would be monumental to do from the private sector but a federally charter independent nonpartisan agency could get it done.

Imagine the effort involved in dissecting the 2,000 page Health Care Proposal for Constitutional justification for each action proposed within such a monstrosity. That thought must be why you propose: “Rule changes stipulating that bills must be constrained to one similar topic would be required…” With such a constraint a proposed bill will be reduced to a manageable comprehensible size that, dare I say this, anyone can understand. This is similar to the battle in the 1380′s AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian to produce English language Bibles. Just like the church of Wycliffe’s time Congress will lose control if the American people are able to read and understand, for themselves, legislative proposals without the need for the High Priests of Stateism telling us what they mean. These are the same folks who are willing to pass major legislation without even bothering to read these proposals themselves.

Something MUST change and this CCO proposal just might be what is needed now.