It's Time to Reshape the Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country

[bpeale]

by Larry Sabato @ HuffPo
Posted September 26, 2007 | 07:21 PM (EST)

The Constitution of the United States is fundamentally sound, and its design for government and human rights -- from the separation of powers to the Bill of Rights -- is brilliant. Yet in the 220 years since it was written, circumstances have changed dramatically, and serious flaws have emerged in recent times. For example, the transformation in warfare and the enhancement of the U.S. position in the world have tilted the balance of war-making powers too heavily in the president's direction. For another, the structure of the U.S. Senate massively discriminates against the heavily populated states, so much so that a tiny minority of Americans can stymie progress for the vast majority. The Founders can hardly be blamed; no one could see hundreds of years into the future. The first people who recognized this reality were the Founders themselves. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, and others urged Americans to reform their constitutional handiwork regularly. Jefferson wanted a new Constitutional Convention every 19 years -- the length of a generation in his time. But we've never had another Convention, and we've added only 17 Amendments to the text of the Constitution (some of them quite minor) since the Framers put down their quill pens. It's time to take up the fight for a fairer America. Certainly, careful study is required over a generation because the Constitution should never be changed lightly. But the debate about change is long overdue. Among the 23 proposals for major reform in my new book, A More Perfect Constitution, are these seven suggested improvements:

more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-sabato/its-time-to-reshape-the-_b_66030.html

[mainegreen]

1. One thing the country needs is a nationwide citizens initiative, of some form.

Some states have this, like we do in Maine, and it can be rather handy when the government won't do what the vast majority want.

[bpeale]

2. I just thought this guys article was food for thought...

and maybe a little discussion of what we all want...or what will benefit us. I think some changes could be made & he has written some good ones in this article. Maybe it IS time for this...

[Selatius]

6. That might be more applicable in nations with smaller population sizes and convergent views.

Ours is a country of 300,000,000 with divergent views instead of convergent views on a lot of things from taxes to education and health care and social spending. Nevermind social wedge issues. Switzerland is a model example of democracy through the power of referendums, initiatives, and recall provisions, but I really think that if people want that type of system here, that would likely mean the break-up of the United States into multiple regional nations.

[mainegreen]

7. I think if you did a few things, it could work.

One would be to set high bars for getting a referendum going, and for passing a referendum.
That way it could only be used for dealing with issues of great importance that the legislature refuses to deal with for some reason or another. Clearly you would not want it easy enough that things like housing codes could be dealt with in this manner (unless the government gave up regulating that and a crisis was formed). On minor or ever moderate issues the will to get to referendum stage really would not be there, and for issues that could get to referendum, make the requirements for passing the referendum high, say 2/3rds or 3/4ths. Something that would prevent attempts to micromanage through referendum.
I doubt it would be used but rarely, and when it would be used, it would tend to be I imagine in a situation where such a power would be greatly needed.

Wouldn't it be nice if ten years down the road, if we are still in the worsening health care crisis, the people could rise up and give a big 'screw you, national healthcare is the law of the land'?

[Selatius]

8. I don't think 2/3rds would be reachable as far as health care goes.

Anything beyond 60 percent for any progressive reform and you're basically asking the Republican base to vote against their ideological views on things like health care or more funding for public education and health care and renewable energy and so forth.

With the hurdle that high, it would simply be easier to concentrate on passing a reform at the state level, such as Mitt Romney's mandatory health insurance law in Massachusetts. Forget about the federal level because there is little agreement there anymore. As I said, the views are divergent, not convergent, which is why I think if such reforms are to be passed, that it only be done after the US is broken apart into several constituent nations because those regional nations would have within them populations that have more in common than not.

For example, compare the views of a typical Alabama and Mississippi voter together. Then compare those two with the typical views of a voter in Massachusetts or California.

[H2O Man]

3. "You say

you'll change the constitution,
well, you know,
we all want to change your head...."
-- John Lennon; Revolution (Lennon/McCartney)

[mdmc]

4. But when you talk about destruction

:kick:

[bunkerbuster1]

5. Thanks for the link. I like all but #5.

Not that it's a bad idea, but something in me is a little sqeamish about the Constitution dictating what a political party can and can't do regarding its primaries.

[Bucky]

9. Larry Sabato has his idiot moments. This was one of them.

I don't think he quite understands the Constitution.

"More than 14 million American citizens are automatically and irrevocably barred from holding the office of president simply because they were not born in the United States -- either they are immigrants or their American mothers gave birth to them while outside U.S. territory."

First off, he's wrong about that second group of people. When Mitt Romney's dad George Romney ran for president in 1968 someone pointed out that he was born in Mexico, altho still a natural born American. All constitutional scholars consulted at the time concluded there was no reason why an American born outside the US couldn't be president. Sabato should know this.

I agree that the exclusion of naturalized citizens is petty. So did the Founders, as they saw fit to allow naturalized citizens in their own generation to be eligible for the office (men like Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson). There's about a dozen silly little impositions like this in the Constitution. Why does a president have to be 35? Why does a member of Congress have to live in his state for at least 11 years? Unless you're named Granholm or Schwarzeneggar, this isn't an issue.

"Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue American military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops."

That change might solve this current problem, but probably it wouldn't. What he's proposing is a burdonsome, involve repeat of the same debate year after year. The Constitution we have has worked so well for so long because it is flexible. Trying to micromanage how Congress handles its oversight duties is a bad idea. Congress has shown it's very good at avoiding its oversight duties when it wants to and fulfilling it when it wants to. Mandating a bunch of debates in a chamber fully capable of setting or avoiding debates at its own whim is pointless.

And don't even start to think about how the proposal he offers would start to unravel if Congress failed to hold one of these six-month reauthorizing votes. Would the Supreme Court get pulled in to rule on whether troops had to come home? What if in the year between the non-reauthorization and the mandated pull out, there's a crisis... or a new six month vote for a counter-non-reauthorization? You can damn well bet that a future Republican Congress would use this process to screw with any wars or peace keeping missions led by a Democratic president. This is a recipe for jerking around American troops in the field. It's a bad idea. The right solution is simply for Congress to start handling its responsibilities.

"... had the founders realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day. A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court."

Sabato's just being obtuse. The founders didn't spend much time debating the Third Branch of government. But the one issue they did talk about extensively is how long judges should serve. They decided overwhelmingly that of all the choices they could make, the best solution was to have judges serve for "good behavior" or life. If you read Madison's notes on the Convention of 1787, you'll see why they were right.

"Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states; the regions would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. A U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on January 1 of the presidential election year, would determine the order of regional events."

Good drama doesn't always make for good politics. The Constitution has no place telling the major (or minor) parties how to nominate their candidates. The nomination process is a mess, of course, and someone should fix it. But the Constitution is not that someone.

"The benefits of living in a great democracy are not a God-given right."

Larry Sabato has apparently never heard of John Locke or J.J. Rousseau. Thankfully the Framers of the Constition were familiar with the idea of natural rights. Yes, living in a democracy is most certainly a God given right. You might even call this truth "self evident". But the dipshit continues....

"In exchange for the privileges of American citizenship, every individual owes a debt of public service to his fellow citizens. The Constitution should mandate that all able bodied Americans devote two years of their lives to serving their nation"

There's nothing wrong with public service. As a teacher I feel I've dedicated my whole adult life to public service. You could even argue the merits of mandating it by law--assuming you have the money to draft the entire population of 18-20 year olds or 22-24 year olds into public service. But sticking such a mandate into the Constitution is another example of micromanaging that the Framers wisely avoided. Which is a nice way of saying it's another stupid idea from Larry Sabato.

"Give the president the line-item appropriations veto. If we want an effective presidency, then we must structure it to be effective even in difficult situations, such as when different parties control the White House and the Congress."

The line item veto is another step in the direction of the imperial presidency--giving the Executive Branch even more control over the budget, a function that is supposed to belong to the law makers, not the law enforcers.

2300 years ago Plato thought through the problems of government and decided the ideal form of government is a monarchy with a philosopher-king. 250 years ago Montesquieu re-thought the problem and decided that the Roman and British models of a separated government was better. Then 220 years ago our Framers looked at the problem for more practical purposes and decided Montesquieu was right and Plato wrong. Larry Sabato seems to think we would do better to go with a more complicated version of Plato's approach--have one guy with a lot of power but with a lot of procedural ham strings wrapped about him to keep him from making wars.

Democracy is messy. It's not going to look pretty up close. People will castigate one another and law makers will dodge responsibility most of the time and often become corrupt in the process. But even Plato recognized that a king--hereditary or elected--is one of the last people in the world to take on a philosopher's outlook. The solution to pork barrel spending is a pissed off electorate and a disciplined Congress. Redesigning the Constitution for every little flaw and pimple in today's politics is not a form of discipline; it's a form of avoidance.

Sabato might be good at reading polls and predicting election outcomes. But he doesn't know a damn thing about our Constitution and he would do well to research the topic better before offering his short sighted "solutions."