Even the most ardent wild-eyed liberal policy wonk will admit that the scope of the Federal government has gone way beyond what is described in the Constitution. If it seems quaint or old-fashioned to hold to an ancient framework of laws, don't forget that the amendment process allows for change, and in those relatively few instances when a change was willed by a significant enough number, changes were made.

Slavery was abolished, alcohol was prohibited, and then re-allowed, and an income tax was established, for example.

The overwhelming number of issues, though, are NOT presently a valid function of government. Pro-choice and pro-life partisans can agree on at least one thing: Abortion is not a legitimate federal issue, any more than the so-called war on drugs.

That these matters, and thousands of others, ARE under federal control, as a fait accompli by no means makes it right. It should only underscore that your freedoms are being taken away--bit by bit.

We all learned in school about the balance of powers, between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Neither Madison, Jefferson, nor Hamilton could foresee that the balance would be upset by countless Executive Orders, or de facto legislation by the Courts. No framer could have predicted that Congress would become the weakest branch of all, effectively disenfranchising all citizens.

One could argue that our interests are being protected by the sole official elected at large--the President. But, don't try pressing that point too far with a widow created by an undeclared war, or random military misadventure.

Moreover, given the very unlikely prospect of actually removing the Chief Executive from office, it surely does matter who becomes President!

A particularly odious notion is being proffered during this election. The Gore camp is suggesting to Nader's supporters that a vote for him is "wasted," and is just helping Bush. Assuming that an eight-year incumbent vice president is in such desperate straits that this assessment, while probably accurate on its face, is even worth worrying about, raises a couple of really big questions.

Why do Ralph Nader and his partisans owe Al Gore anything? And, under what bizarre scheme of reasoning is voting your conscience wasting your vote? The arrogance necessary to hold such a position takes my breath away. How far down in the polls does a candidate have to be, before a vote for him is wasted?

It's bad enough that the "minor" candidates were denied the public forum of the televised debates. The implication that their very status as candidates exists at the pleasure of the established parties SHOULD have been condemned by the media, but that's a whole other story.

The good news is that despite all the negative ads, all the high-tech persuasion, and all the focus groups, it still comes down to each individual pulling a lever, punching a card, or marking a ballot.

The system is far from perfect, but tuum est. It's still up to you.