With that formality out of the way, many settled down to business as usual, devising ways to circumvent constitutional precepts that might hinder their personal political objectives. And even many legislators who seem genuinely anxious to trim our central government back to constitutional size have been enticed to endorse an agenda that in many respects is itself a subtle assault on the document that ranks first as the supreme law of our land. Consider the many constitutional amendments that have been proposed to either reverse destructive Supreme Court decisions or coerce Congress to be more responsible in carrying out its duties. Each proposed amendment carries with it the implication that the Constitution is somehow inadequate to cope with the problems involved, which is demonstrably not so. To the contrary, it contains all of the mechanics necessary for balancing the federal budget, if only Congress had the will, by simple majority vote, to do so.
Term limitation is already available at two-year intervals.
Unfunded mandates could be brought to a screeching halt overnight if enough senators and representatives were willing to abide by their oath of office and abolish the unconstitutional programs which undergird such mandates. All that is required is a simple majority support in both houses, compared to the extraordinary effort over many years, requiring supermajorities at each step, to ratify a constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments, by their very nature, imply that the Constitution is flawed. The Constitution is clear in its grant of congressional authority to modify or abolish the federal judiciary's appellate jurisdiction. Though primarily intended to help keep the High Court's workload at tolerable levels, this provision gives Congress unequivocal authority to limit or abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.