Constitutional Convention, anyone?

[SEVERUSMAX]

Might not be a bad idea, provided that we could keep the regular politicians out of it. Lobbyists, too, of course. Imagine if your least favorite interest group was represented....yikes. I have horror images of Christian Coalition delegates present, yammering for a specific mention of Jesus Christ in the Constitution, or something worse, like a ban on gay porn.

LOL.

Seriously, however, I think that it would be nice, if we could get the right people at the Convention. Americans first, conservatives and liberals second. People worthy of the legacy of the Framers.

 

[rgraham666]

Not to worry, Sev. There's another Civil War coming. You can pick up the pieces afterwards.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No one respects the constitution we already have, and I'm not encouraged we'll treat a new one any better.

Jefferson spoke highly of revolts. You know, about the blood of tyrants and patriots fertilizing the tree of liberty. This might get enough respect to be worth the effort.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Not to worry, Sev. There's another Civil War coming. You can pick up the pieces afterwards.

I'd rather avoid the civil war, but I'm afraid you might be right. Too much polarization.

 

[rgraham666]

Sorry, shouldn't post first thing in the morning on stuff like that.

Anyway, after thinking about this, I believe changing the Constitution falls into the category of 'it's a poor workman who blames his tools'.

I think the problem is with the workmen, that is the people of the United States. The world is changing and the U.S. has to change to meets these new challenges. The people have to change.

In my mind there are three choices.

The first choice is to change into responsible citizens, people whose first duty is to the nation. As Adam Smith put it, "He is not a wise and good man who does not at all times prefer the public interest to his own private interest." This does not exclude individuality. It merely means that the individual will wonder how his or her own interests will harm or help society.

The second choice is to change into amoral corporatists. That is their first duty is to the corporation they belong to. That doesn't necessarily mean a business corporation. A Corporation is any special interest group. People prefer corporatism, especially here in the West, as corporatism suits the tribal nature of human beings and it is more rational than democracy. Also corporatism excludes individual responsibility

The final choice is to remain the selfish 'rugged' individualists that is central to the American psyche, people whose first duty is to themselves, their families and, perhaps, their neighbors. Why not? It worked for over two hundred years.

To my mind the conflict in the U.S. is between the people who have made the second and third choices. Essentially they're arguing about which form of authoritarianism will run the U.S. in the future.

The people who have made the first choice aren't fighting over power. They're just trying to meet the challenges life offers.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Interesting notion.

Why I uphold states' rights, that's only on the philosophical basis of a natural duty to defend one's homeland and a Constitutional basis of a preserving the continued, residual sovereignty of the states.

That is something of which the Framers would approve. However, they wouldn't approve of placing party, faction, religion, class, race, or sex above the nation. The Framers intended a balance of power between states and the Union. They didn't intend a partisan political system, yet one emerged during their generation, anyway.

They certainly didn't intend for all of these interest groups to become the focus of power in this country. Also quoting Mr. Smith, "Men of the same trade seldom meet, but the gathering results in a conspiracy against the general public."

By large, I think that Rob's points are valid.

However, I do think that some Amendments might help to make it more difficult for those factions to acquire more power. One thing that would NOT help is proportional representation. It's bad news proven by its failure in Europe. It means shaky coalitions and even worse gridlock than already exists here. Especially coupled with a parliamentary system.

Parliamentary government suits Great Britain and her Dominions, at least partly because of the fact that they lack this PR version. The other reason is that this system has roots in Anglo-Norman history. Compare that to the weakness of the List system, and you can see the difference. Little wonder that the Italians flirted with the Reds and neo-Fascists in the 70s and 80s.

So, what might help, practically? Beyond the long-term solutions of greater civic-mindedness (a Greek invention, really, and a noble one).

1. A single, 6 year Presidential term. This would cut down on the tendencies of US Presidents to behave like petty politicians in mid-term, and would provide us with at least one public figure who had no vested interest in pandering to factions. True, he would be less accountable in some sense, but there is still the threat of impeachment and removal from office. And some Presidents who go a little sour at the end of once worthy service might leave before destroying their legacies (Reagan or Nixon, anyone). Naturally, the Vice President should have the same term as the President.

2. A line-item veto, the secret of many a successful governor and the envy of many a failed President. It would also counteract the loss of Presidential power from the aforementioned term-limit.

3. Abolition of direct election of the Senate. The Senate, once again chosen by the state legislatures, would once more represent the States and cut down on the over-centralization of Federal power.

4. Requirement of at least a 4 year interval as a private citizen between the House and the Senate. This might cut back on the "ladder approach" of many politicians, who spend much of their time in the House scheming to get elected to the Senate.

5. A permanent ban on all Federal mandates to the States, funded or otherwise. Along with this would mean the end of "revenue-sharing". States need to learn to exercise some self-reliance, as Arnold has shown to be practical in California.

6. Speaking of Arnold, it is high time to end the requirement of native birth for the Presidency. Plenty a true statesman is barred higher office due to the accident of birth, and the dangers feared by the Framers are much reduced now that the Republic is much stronger than it was in their day.

7. A requirement for a balanced budget, except when allowed by a 3/4 majority of both houses of Congress. Removing the option of deficits might force politicians to make sacrifices. Might being the key word. In the past, wars were paid for by bonds and higher taxes (revolting thought, but part of the patriotic duty sometimes, and a disincentive to reckless wars).

8. A ban on aggressive war, except when given severe provocation and when supported by a Congressional declaration of war. In other words, no more Iraqs. No more imperial Caesar-Presidents, starting wars to increase their own power and prestige.

9. Specific empowerment of the Federal government on issues where necessity has proven that its previous limits are too constrictive. That way, law and necessity are not in conflict. Examples being: certain environmental issues (such as such as arsenic in rivers), nuclear power, internal improvements (a change proposed by Presidents Madison and Monroe, I might add, 2 centuries ago), Social Security (since it already exists and isn't going anywhere)- this would allow more flexibility on reforms of a system technically illegal but now virtually permanent, and civil rights/liberties (as history has shown the dangers of some local and state governments trampling personal freedom the same way that the Feds have done to the States). The Amendment should also reiterate that those rights so far not granted to the Union remain with the People and the States.

10. A final resolution of the question whether a State can secede, one way or the other, so that the issue no longer lingers to cause another civil war.

11. Declaring the smuggling of illegal immigrants to be both treason and slavery, and thus punishable as any other form of such.

12. English to be formally declared the national language, at least on the Federal level. All immigrants should be required to learn English before naturalization as citizens, too.

13. Requirement that any modifications to or reductions of national sovereignty by treaty be legitimized through a Constitutional Amendment to authorize it.

14. A specific ban on civil forfeiture (not that's it not already banned), so as to cut the legs out from under the oppressive tax enforcement tactics of the IRS and the unconstitutional, tyrannical "war on drugs".

15. Yes, the ERA, since men now need it as much as women.

16. A ban on any paper money not backed by gold or silver, thus scrapping the Federal Reserve at last.

17. Repeal of the 16th Amendment, with Federal income to be derived from payroll, sales, and excise taxes, user fees, and tariffs on imported goods.

18. A requirement that all Federal officeholders attend at least 50% of the sessions or schedules legally expected of them. That should cut back on people being distracted from their jobs by campaigning for new ones.

Just some ideas that come to mind.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SEVERUSMAX

Get it thru your skull that no one respects the present Constitution. It's generally ignored or we re-define its words to suit our purposes. Shit! We dont even agree that no means no.

 

[rgraham666]

I've had to think about this. I'll deal with them one at a time.

1. A single, 6 year Presidential term. This would cut down on the tendencies of US Presidents to behave like petty politicians in mid-term, and would provide us with at least one public figure who had no vested interest in pandering to factions. True, he would be less accountable in some sense, but there is still the threat of impeachment and removal from office. And some Presidents who go a little sour at the end of once worthy service might leave before destroying their legacies (Reagan or Nixon, anyone). Naturally, the Vice President should have the same term as the President.

I'm not sure this will help at all. As George Carlin put it, "All term limits will do is make sure you have a steady turnover of incompetent bastards" or something to that effect.

2. A line-item veto, the secret of many a successful governor and the envy of many a failed President. It would also counteract the loss of Presidential power from the aforementioned term-limit.

I really can't speak to this. But it seems to me to confer a lot of power to the President thereby weakening the distribution of power set by the Constitution.

3. Abolition of direct election of the Senate. The Senate, once again chosen by the state legislatures, would once more represent the States and cut down on the over-centralization of Federal power.

I honestly don't see how this would help.

My biggest concern is that this wouldn't change one of the central problems with the U.S. The fact that 50% of the Senate is chosen by 16% of the population. Appointment of Senators wouldn't change this.

4. Requirement of at least a 4 year interval as a private citizen between the House and the Senate. This might cut back on the "ladder approach" of many politicians, who spend much of their time in the House scheming to get elected to the Senate.

On this I agree. It might separate the public servants from the greedy.

I'd also place a four year moratorium on getting jobs after they leave office, so they're not tempted to cash in on their Washington experience.

5. A permanent ban on all Federal mandates to the States, funded or otherwise. Along with this would mean the end of "revenue-sharing". States need to learn to exercise some self-reliance, as Arnold has shown to be practical in California.

Um, what happens to the states that are poor? Some states just don't have the wealth to maintain high levels of community support.

Does this mean that programs like SCHIP need to be abolished? What happens to kids in the poor states that need medical care?

6. Speaking of Arnold, it is high time to end the requirement of native birth for the Presidency. Plenty a true statesman is barred higher office due to the accident of birth, and the dangers feared by the Framers are much reduced now that the Republic is much stronger than it was in their day.

On this I'm agreed. If they are good enough to be citizens, they're good enough to be President.

7. A requirement for a balanced budget, except when allowed by a 3/4 majority of both houses of Congress. Removing the option of deficits might force politicians to make sacrifices. Might being the key word. In the past, wars were paid for by bonds and higher taxes (revolting thought, but part of the patriotic duty sometimes, and a disincentive to reckless wars).

I think it's a good idea. But it will never be popular.

For example, I think the U.S. military is a very bad return for the money spent on it. It's a source of endless corruption and used to practice Keynsian economics without looking like Keynsian economics.

A fair bit of cutting would do it some good.

But If I was a Congressman and suggested such a thing, I'd be dead by morning.

8. A ban on aggressive war, except when given severe provocation and when supported by a Congressional declaration of war. In other words, no more Iraqs. No more imperial Caesar-Presidents, starting wars to increase their own power and prestige.

No offense, Sev, but good fucking luck with that.

The invasion of Iraq wasn't sold as an aggressive war. It was a war to 'strike back at evil doers', to 'spread democracy', to 'protect freedom'. And most people in America believed it.

Had such a ban been in the Constitution wouldn't have stopped the invasion of Iraq.

9. Specific empowerment of the Federal government on issues where necessity has proven that its previous limits are too constrictive. That way, law and necessity are not in conflict. Examples being: certain environmental issues (such as such as arsenic in rivers), nuclear power, internal improvements (a change proposed by Presidents Madison and Monroe, I might add, 2 centuries ago), Social Security (since it already exists and isn't going anywhere)- this would allow more flexibility on reforms of a system technically illegal but now virtually permanent, and civil rights/liberties (as history has shown the dangers of some local and state governments trampling personal freedom the same way that the Feds have done to the States). The Amendment should also reiterate that those rights so far not granted to the Union remain with the People and the States.

I'm not sure of this. It seems to me that it would be better to leave this to something easily changeable, like the law, rather than set in Constitutional stone. This sort of thing can be awfully slippery.

10. A final resolution of the question whether a State can secede, one way or the other, so that the issue no longer lingers to cause another civil war.

And, in my opinion, the answer should be NO! Anything else is simply making it okay for a state to leave the moment they don't get their own way.

11. Declaring the smuggling of illegal immigrants to be both treason and slavery, and thus punishable as any other form of such.

Nope. This is a matter of law.

Anyway the solution to illegal immigration is not the Constitution. It's atitude and money. Illegal immigrants work jobs Americans don't want at wages Americans aren't willing to work at. Changing that means Americans will take the jobs. And the illegal immigrants won't go to the U.S. because the jobs are filled.

Not going to happen though. Americans won't do dirty jobs and won't pay fairly to have the dirty jobs done for them.

12. English to be formally declared the national language, at least on the Federal level. All immigrants should be required to learn English before naturalization as citizens, too.

Good luck with that. It won't work.

It's been tried here in Canada, in Quebec. French is the official language there. The only result is that the current generation is bi and often tri-lingual.

But the reality is that French is dying because English is the lingua franca of the world. So the 'Quebecois' culture is dying out. All the laws and constitutions in the world aren't going to change that. Too bad but it happens to every culture or language sooner or later.

13. Requirement that any modifications to or reductions of national sovereignty by treaty be legitimized through a Constitutional Amendment to authorize it.

Not sure at all what this means.

14. A specific ban on civil forfeiture (not that's it not already banned), so as to cut the legs out from under the oppressive tax enforcement tactics of the IRS and the unconstitutional, tyrannical "war on drugs".

So if someone breaks the law they get to keep their loot? Nice.

15. Yes, the ERA, since men now need it as much as women.

Agreed.

16. A ban on any paper money not backed by gold or silver, thus scrapping the Federal Reserve at last.

I'm not sure there's enough gold and/or silver in the Earth's crust to support the world's money. What would be the results of the rapid deflation this policy would cause.

Anyway value, whether of gold or paper money, is simply a matter of imagination. Something is valuable because we believe it is valuable. As long as we're aware of this we can keep out imaginations in check.

Once we start thinking value is 'real' we're in trouble.

17. Repeal of the 16th Amendment, with Federal income to be derived from payroll, sales, and excise taxes, user fees, and tariffs on imported goods.

Does that mean that businesses no longer pay taxes? That they can do business in America, where the money is guaranteed and the laws are enforced, but they don't have to pay for any of it? Nice.

Does that mean that the concept of 'free trade' is to be tossed out the window? What effect will excise taxes and tariffs have on the U.S. trade balance?

Does that mean that only employees and consumers carry the tax burden? There's a lot of the economy that takes place outside of these areas. Do people in that part of the economy get a free ride?

18. A requirement that all Federal officeholders attend at least 50% of the sessions or schedules legally expected of them. That should cut back on people being distracted from their jobs by campaigning for new ones.

I'm agreed with this. However, how big a problem is this? To me this statement has the flavor of 'everybody knows', an 'accepted fact'. Which, I've found is usually not the case.

Anyway, none of this affects my original thesis. That is, changing the Constitution won't accomplish a goddamn thing.

The problems with the U.S. now are problems with its society, its people. They'll have to fix themselves before they can fix the Constitution.

Here's a little bit of George Carlin on the matter.

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: "The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope."

 

[sr71plt]

The political pundit and think tank director Larry Sabato this year published a detailed call for a new Constitutional convention with specific suggestion on what needs to be done (A More Perfect Constitution) and has taken this on the road and actually got a conference of U.S.congressmen and senators together to hear his pitch. But so far no go.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, it's interesting to see where Rob and I agree and disagree.

I happen to think that the fact the Constitution is only meant to be changed through Amendment, and nothing but Amendment, is a cardinal rule for any strict constructionist, but I'm (no offense) surprised that a Canadian sees it differently. Your Constitution is inherently malleable, whereas ours was intended to be more ironclad.

Actually, employers would continue paying taxes (payroll) under my plan. Just not extremely punishing capital gains taxes.

As for the US military, much of its size is due to the larger role of America in the world. As long as America has that role, I don't see any more drastic cutback than those of the Clinton years. And the wisdom of those has proven to be dubious, as the overextension of our forces in Kosovo and Iraq has shown.

Also, I would add more one idea: the replacement of popular election of the Electoral College with a lottery system. I've toyed with that idea for the Senate, but I think that states' rights needs a drastic boost. A President elected by the Electoral College, as the Framers intended, would be a much less demagogic figure, I think.

Fundamentally, these are safeguards, not demographic solutions (except if we can get a grip on immigration). But they would help, IMO.

I understand that Rob disagrees on some, and I respect his dissent on those points. Some of that is philosophical, and some of it cultural, since Canada is more liberal than America but more conservative than Europe overall.

I haven't seen governors becoming too powerful due to the line-item veto, so I doubt that that Presidents would. But that remains to be seen, even assuming that a line-item veto happened. Clinton had it, briefly, but the Supreme Court overruled it. Confederate Presidents had it, too, but since the CSA didn't last, that is a point for speculation.

As for secession, I think that the law presently makes it a Constitutional right. But if the states and the people choose to abolish that right, they can do so. Admittedly, it would mean that only national revolutions would be left to hold Federal power in check, but they might still decide that the need for more permanent national unity outweighs the negative ramifications of ending that right. I'm not so sure, but it's possible I could be wrong on that point.

Regarding the treaty issue, I am one of many Americans who believes that the Constitution supersedes all international treaties. To reinforce and secure national sovereignty, a reiteration of this matter would be helpful. I do, unlike some federalists, consider the USA to be a nation. However, I think that it is a different kind of nation: it is a nation composed of 50 smaller nations or republics, called states, which retain a degree of sovereignty, as they were its creators. But it is still a sovereign nation and its sovereignty should not be subject to unaccountable global institutions.

My objection to civil forfeiture is that violates due process. It happens before trial and remains in effect regardless of acquittal.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, it's interesting to see where Rob and I agree and disagree.

I happen to think that the fact the Constitution is only meant to be changed through Amendment, and nothing but Amendment, is a cardinal rule for any strict constructionist, but I'm (no offense) surprised that a Canadian sees it differently. Your Constitution is inherently malleable, whereas ours was intended to be more ironclad.

Actually, employers would continue paying taxes (payroll) under my plan. Just not extremely punishing capital gains taxes.

As for the US military, much of its size is due to the larger role of America in the world. As long as America has that role, I don't see any more drastic cutback than those of the Clinton years. And the wisdom of those has proven to be dubious, as the overextension of our forces in Kosovo and Iraq has shown.

Also, I would add more one idea: the replacement of popular election of the Electoral College with a lottery system. I've toyed with that idea for the Senate, but I think that states' rights needs a drastic boost. A President elected by the Electoral College, as the Framers intended, would be a much less demagogic figure, I think.

Fundamentally, these are safeguards, not demographic solutions (except if we can get a grip on immigration). But they would help, IMO.

I understand that Rob disagrees on some, and I respect his dissent on those points. Some of that is philosophical, and some of it cultural, since Canada is more liberal than America but more conservative than Europe overall.

I haven't seen governors becoming too powerful due to the line-item veto, so I doubt that that Presidents would. But that remains to be seen, even assuming that a line-item veto happened. Clinton had it, briefly, but the Supreme Court overruled it. Confederate Presidents had it, too, but since the CSA didn't last, that is a point for speculation.

As for secession, I think that the law presently makes it a Constitutional right. But if the states and the people choose to abolish that right, they can do so. Admittedly, it would mean that only national revolutions would be left to hold Federal power in check, but they might still decide that the need for more permanent national unity outweighs the negative ramifications of ending that right. I'm not so sure, but it's possible I could be wrong on that point.

Regarding the treaty issue, I am one of many Americans who believes that the Constitution supersedes all international treaties. To reinforce and secure national sovereignty, a reiteration of this matter would be helpful. I do, unlike some federalists, consider the USA to be a nation. However, I think that it is a different kind of nation: it is a nation composed of 50 smaller nations or republics, called states, which retain a degree of sovereignty, as they were its creators.

My objection to civil forfeiture is that it violates due process, in that it happens without benefit of trial, at the hands of administrative law bodies (admin law really is unconstitutional, and should be outlawed). Mind you, the idea of a Convention wouldn't come up if we would just obey the Constitution instead of ignoring and redefining it.

 

[shereads]

What gripes me is when the presidential oath of office "to preserve and protect the Constitution" is interpreted to mean, "to protect Americans from danger." How are those two objectives the same thing? The most effective way to protect life and property would begin with setting aside constitutional freedoms and imposing a military dictatorship. Not sure if this is the place to post that thought, but it was on my mind because I just heard Sarah Palin repeat what Bush has said innumerable times since 9/11: that the president's primary duty is to keep us safe. Only Palin, unlike Bush, actually quoted "preserve and protect the Constution" and then said that's what it means: keeping us safe. HUH? That's like saying that blue means cow.

Hey, I like being safe as much as anyone. But I'd rather be killed by terrorists than kept safe by Big Brother: spied upon by my government, locked up without habeas corpus if someone in power suspects me of something I haven't done. If I'm outnumbered - if there really are more people now who'd rather be protected than free, and I think there are - then we might as well ditch this Constitution and start over from scratch with one whose primary goal is to keep us safe, no matter the cost to our civil rights. That's the direction Cheney chose for us; 9/11 provided the opportunity to begin the process.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

To protect from invasion is one thing, but to protect from all danger would be impossible. And would only create a new danger: excessive authority or power in Federal hands.

Not just Presidential, but also Congressional, judicial, and those unconstitutional independent federal agencies and commissions that legislate without being given the right to do so through election. But I digress.

I have a serious burr up my ass about unelected agencies presuming to make laws and try people, thus trying to combine the separated powers of the three branches in their hands. Especially the Universal Connectivity Fee imposed by the FCC, which is just taxation without representation. If it's really necessary to have that tax, they can push it through Congress. If not, they can kiss it goodbye.

 

[shereads]

To protect from invasion is one thing, but to protect from all danger would be impossible.

Even protecting us from invasion is not part of the presidential oath of office. His (her) primary duty is to preserve the Constitution. Whether we can live safely while keeping the Constitution intact may be a valid topic for discussion - but the fact remains that the President cannot choose our safety over our civil liberties without violating his oath.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Of course, since the Constitution right now is ignored, one wonders if the Amendments will be respected, either, or not.

 

[shereads]

Of course, since the Constitution right now is ignored, one wonders if the Amendments will be respected, either, or not.

I don't wonder. I'm confident that we will scurry around like small scared rodents protecting our Cheez Nips, until freedom is just a bumpersticker.

Edited to clarify: by "we" I mean the majority of us that returned Monkey Boy and his handler to the White House in '04 - the year that American democracy became a failed experiment; the year Karl Rove & Co proved that fear, properly manipulated, trumps every other function of the human brain.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't wonder. I'm confident that we will scurry around like small scared rodents protecting our Cheez Nips, until freedom is just a bumpersticker.

Edited to clarify: by "we" I mean the majority of us that returned Monkey Boy and his handler to the White House in '04 - the year that American democracy became a failed experiment.

Well, Benjamin Franklin was convinced that eventually every society becomes so corrupt that despotism is inevitable. Perhaps he wasn't wrong.