There is a tendency, among liberals, to claim that we have changed as a people. The claim is that what was human nature 200 years ago no longer applies. They hold the Constitution is no longer in touch with the reality of life in America. There is a view which holds that conservatives are stagnant, that Congress is not doing the People’s work
I don't know that I would use a word such as "stagnant" to describe human nature. The thought might be the same to you but stagnant tends to be a word with negative connotations, how about steadfast or static to stay with the "s"es.
If this were not the case, Shakespeare, to say nothing of Aristophanes or Euripides would make no sense to us since we would see life differently. As it works out, Homer, telling of the Trojan War describes motivations, which still apply today. Human nature hasn't changed very much, at least in the period covered by our history.
An amendment to do the people's work--fine idea--might I suggest:
"No Executive Order shall be valid forty-five (45) days after the Congress shall convene in regular session.
No bill may be submitted for consideration by Congress without clear language in the preamble which states the Article and Section of the Constitution or the Amendment to the Constitution which specifically authorizes the government to fund or take such measures or enact such law.
All federal laws, which are in effect at the time of ratification, shall be reviewed and notation added to indicate the authorizing passage from the Constitution as required in paragraph two (2) of this amendment. Any federal law lacking such notation one year after the ratification of this amendment shall be immediately null and void."
With an Amendment to the Constitution similar to this the government could get back to the people's and states' work without the constant distraction of things which are none of its concern.
Having a "little bit of socialism" is like being a "little bit pregnant". People are free or they aren't. You can never be free to utilize your resources as you see fit if society has first claim on them.
Aside from actual charity, churches etc., the first public welfare I'm aware of in the United States consisted of issuing a musket, power, and shot to the poor that they might feed themselves and fulfill their role as members of the militia. Not giving them a fish, but teaching them to fish you might say.
As to the "compulsory charity" authored by government, the Fifth Amendment dates from the founding of our nation. Please tell which of the state constitutions allow the state, or any subdivision of a state, to confiscate private property for the use of the general public or a specified portion of the public without just compensation and due process of law?
In the history of various states you can easily find cases where the state provided asylum for the insane or homes for the poor elderly. You cannot find cases where the state bled the landowners and the workers to provide assistance for anyone, it wouldn't have been tolerated prior to the introduction of socialism. It shouldn't be tolerated today.
Any restriction placed upon the free personal behavior of an adult which harms no one else will lead to further restrictions on other free personal behaviors.
The government has no valid reason to require me to wear a helmet when I ride a motor-cycle. The government has no valid reason to require me to wear seat-belts in a car (why aren't they required in school buses?). The government has no valid reason to forbid me to use non-prescribed drugs. Now these things are all pretty common sense things aren't they? But are they any of the government's business?
If you consider these things to be a valid role for government, you'd have to consider the validity of diet control, the banning of bar-b-que, a national prohibition on bicycles and swimming pools, the outlawing of nicotine and caffeine, join whole-heartedly in requiring inspections of home offices, etc.
Wouldn't a simpler way out just be a total ban on all privacy--everyone's neighbor could observe and inform on everyone else? Let's just require that all walls, everywhere, be made of glass or transparent plastic--put an end to all of this destructive personal choice behavior.
Laws must be enforced if they are to have any value, provisionally agreed.
Laws without merit, laws for the convenience of the state, laws which violate the Constitution (or the state's constitution), laws which are not accepted by the public--as demonstrated by low compliance, and laws which attempt to force a particular view of morality or society in general upon the public, even if accepted by the majority of the people; are types of laws which encourage their own violation.
Any type of law which encourages scoff-law conduct is bad law. Bad law is far worse than no law. Bad law of any type encourages people to ignore other laws (even necessary good laws) and lowers the respect for law in general and enforcement officers in particular. If California enacts a statute which forbids the use of any tobacco product in any public place, is the state acting within its lawful powers? Is this good law? Will tobacco users readily comply? Does this mean the state will also rescind all taxes on tobacco? Would such a law make any sense in any other state?