Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.
Let’s Give Up on the Constitution
Comments
Amen!
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.
And that's the problem. The Constitution is grotesquely antidemocratic and dysfunctional... but it's protected by a civic religion that blinds us to its defects. Like True Believers of the Market who redefine all the failures into proof of market infallibility, so do True Believers in this civic religion bury all the contradictions and redefine its failures and claim the Constitution was either handed down on a slab or was is a work of genius.
I've confessed in other posts that it's a matter of personal embarrassment that while I was a PoliSci major as an undergrad and certainly had disdain for much of the antidemocratic nature of the Constitution all my adult life, I never really thought it through until a read a MoJo article in '98 called 75 Stars
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1998/01/75-stars
The more I looked into the antidemocratic math in the Constitution the more shocking it gots. For instance about 3.5% of the nation's population in the 12 smallest states can block ANY constitutional amendment... yet the 38 smallest states that can ratify any amendment do not comprise a super-majority of the population but less than 40%.
The Constitution also just fails some basic requirements of a democracy... or a democratic republic. For instance it fails the test of moral legitimacy set forth in the Declaration of independence... that government derives its JUST power from the CONSENT of the governed. No government that allows for minority rule as ours does has that consent. It also fails to offer citizens the chance to vote their conscience and be guaranteed some representation. I can vote forever and NEVER get representation for my Progressive views. I'm taxed without representation.
This raises a question I posed a time back... why do we feel compelled to so respect our Constitution when it represented the compromises and consent of a mere 2000 white men who wrote and ratified the Constitution 225 years ago... all who are long dead and some may have been quite despicable? Why do we place the politics of 1787 above our own? Why do we deny the failures and dysfunctional of the Constitution or redefine them as proof of the genius of the Framers?
The Constitution HAS become a secular religion.
As I have written consistently, we ought not be constrained by the understandings of the Constitution held by the Framers, since they are dead and we can really never know the understandings about which they lied and dissembled.
As I have written consistently, we ought not be constrained by the understandings of the Constitution held by the Framers, since they are dead and we can really never know the understandings about which they lied and dissembled.
Either way, I'm not a fan of the Constitution and could care less about original intent even if I debate it here quite often. The document has always been antidemocratic and virtually reform-proof.. and demographic trends are making it more so. It's created a dysfunctional and braindead political system that deprives citizens of the most basic right in a democracy... the right to vote one's conscience and get representation. In reality it's a system that steals the consent of a large percentage of citizens and gives that power to others. In that process it fails to meet the other basic principle of a democracy... that the government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.
The idea of the Constitution was to assure that equality and justice for all human beings would be available in this new nation, as opposed to what the founders and their ancestors experienced in plutocratic Europe for milleniums. Of course, at the time the founders put the Constitution together, the only people considered to be human beings were white males, but that was as much an opinion formed by the former and current eras as today's common opinion that plutocracy must be protected has been formed by media propaganda since the 1980's.
It is apparently impossible to find anything that would be recorded on the Congresional Record from 1876 to 1988 on the internet. If one wants to study what changes were discussed and/or made in the Constitution during those years, one must find them in a law library. This is of interest to me since I recently heard that supposedly on Feb. 9, 1917, the Congressional Record of the House has a discussion on how to dumb down the public, recorded on pages 29-46, 29-47, 29-48, and 29-49, showing us how that has been now done by the media.
If that is true, I wonder if this current NYT article does is not just continuing to practice propagandizing to the public that they must get rid of the article that has been holding that attempt to keep all of the US nation's citiens in equality and justice for over two centuries.
BTW, when I wrote to the Library of Congress about the missing years of Congressional Record, the answer was:
The idea of the Constitution was to assure that equality and justice for all human beings would be available in this new nation, as opposed to what the founders and their ancestors experienced in plutocratic
The idea of the Constitution was to assure that equality and justice for all human beings would be available in this new nation, as opposed to what the founders and their ancestors experienced in plutocratic Europe for milleniums. Of course, at the time the founders put the Constitution together, the only people considered to be human beings were white males, but that was as much an opinion formed by the former and current eras as today's common opinion that plutocracy must be protected has been formed by media propaganda since the 1980's.
It is apparently impossible to find anything that would be recorded on the Congresional Record from 1876 to 1988 on the internet. If one wants to study what changes were discussed and/or made in the Constitution during those years, one must find them in a law library. This is of interest to me since I recently heard that supposedly on Feb. 9, 1917, the Congressional Record of the House has a discussion on how to dumb down the public, recorded on pages 29-46, 29-47, 29-48, and 29-49, showing us how that has been now done by the media.
If that is true, I wonder if this current NYT article is not just continuing to practice propagandizing to the public that they must work against themselves and get rid of the article that has been holding that attempt to keep all of the US nation's citiens in equality and justice for over two centuries.
BTW, when I wrote to the Library of Congress about the missing years of Congressional Record, the answer was:
[/quote]
The originators of Democracy, the Greeks, also had slaves and powerless women. Look where they are now.
Changes are inevitable, and our Constitution has been worked on as the changes happened, though not always in the same spirit of liberty, equality and justice that it was created in...
Ok - so we're all apparently in agreement here that the Great Experiment in Democracy, as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America has failed miserably, and that it has, in effect, set up the worst form of Government possible - except for EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ANY NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS EVER TRIED!
No gang ... it ain't perfect, but it's the best we've got. Take a lesson from the 2010 elections (y'all CAN reemember THAT far back, can't'cha?) ... don't abandon the good in the quest for perfection.
The originators of Democracy, the Greeks, also had slaves and powerless women. Look where they are now.
Changes are inevitable, and our Constitution has been worked on as the changes happened, though not always in the same spirit of liberty, equality and justice that it was created in...
And it was the REFORMS to the Constitution that have made it more in the spirit of liberty equality, and justice... not the other way around.
Dump the Constitution? Where would you like to start? How about removing that nasty old seperation between church and state. How about erasing that statement about the general welfare of the people. Be very careful what you wish for.
Ok - so we're all apparently in agreement here that the Great Experiment in Democracy, as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America has failed miserably, and that it has, in effect, set up the worst form of Government possible - except for EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ANY NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS EVER TRIED!
No gang ... it ain't perfect, but it's the best we've got. Take a lesson from the 2010 elections (y'all CAN reemember THAT far back, can't'cha?) ... don't abandon the good in the quest for perfection.
If you can't even deal with that obscene failure of our system then you'll never move on to see how antidemocratic the Senate is with a mere 18% of the population getting 52% of the seats... or how a mere 3.5% of the population in the 12 smallest states can block ANY reform to the Constitution.
The best... my ass. But thanks for the laugh.
Dump the Constitution? Where would you like to start? How about removing that nasty old separation between church and state. How about erasing that statement about the general welfare of the people. Be very careful what you wish for.
Dump the Constitution? Where would you like to start? How about removing that nasty old separation between church and state. How about erasing that statement about the general welfare of the people. Be very careful what you wish for.
You need to take a dose of reality. Do you really think that people such as you and I would have a say in a new Constitution? Those who own the world now would be the authors of a new and improved version and it wouldn't represent the common man in any shape or form. No thanks. The Constitution as it is written now is the only thread of hope that the common man has left even if it's a weak and tiny thread.
Ya ya, we dare not ever try to reform the Constitution because instead of getting rid of the bad parts we might get rid of the good ones. So here we all... stuck with a system that is dysfunctional, braindead, antidemocratic, and reform-proof... and getting more so... but we dare not EVER think of real reform.
You need to take a dose of reality. Do you really think that people such as you and I would have a say in a new Constitution? Those who own the world now would be the authors of a new and improved version and it wouldn't represent the common man in any shape or form. No thanks. The Constitution as it is written now is the only thread of hope that the common man has left even if it's a weak and tiny thread.
ROTF
Gee... did it EVER occur to you we've gotten to this sad point BECAUSE of we have an antidemocratic Constitution?
It's going to take at least a concerted 50 year plan to reform the Constitution and that includes breaking the monopoly of power the two braindead parties have on politics. Since we'll never get real reforms from the GOP, they'll have to come from the Left. A balance will have to be struck between working with reform-minded Dems but NOT to get sucked back into the dysfunctional two party trap. Most reform efforts will have to be done OUTSIDE the Democratic Party... such as through referendum.
Reforms will have to begin in the states... reforming their constitutions to create multiparty systems there first based on proportional representation. This will FINALLY give the People some idea of what a functioning democracy can look like. Once we expand the political spectrum where anti-corporate ideas are finally given voice... we can start building a consensus that business or Wall Street needs to be placed more on a choke-chain so they can not influence the political process. First step for federal reform: the amendment process will have to be changed to be based on population instead of states... unless you like the idea of 3.5% of the population having a veto over what the other 96.5% want... or where a mere 38% can RATIFY any amendment. This is the sort of insanity we get when we base reform on states instead of population.
And your ideas for the next 50 years are what? More of the same even as corporate power grows, more people get disgusted and drop out of the political process, and the Constitution becomes more and more antidemocratic and reform proof?
Great plan ya got there!
Wrong. All it takes is reforming it back from where the teabaggers and those idiots before them took a slice of "the American Dream" out of it, by a strong and brilliant and rational Congress.
Pierpont, the idea is valid but the reality of a new and "improved" Constitution would be a nightmare. How does the Constitution become more and more antidemocratic? It's hardly changed in over 200 years. "People" are becoming more and more intidemocratic. People are abusing the Constitution. People keep changing while the ink stays the same.
Dump the Constitution...?
Probably the only chance for the US to become a civilized democracy...
As it is... continuing to vote for war mongering, war criminal, criminal corporatists who continue to facilitate the redistribution of wealth from the working class and the poor to those at the top while destroying democracies and murdering innocent people leading to the most unequal, violent, terrorist nation in the world... while pretending that voting really matters... does little more than making such crimes acceptable as the "lesser evil"...
If and when the US gets it right... probably see more than a few ex-pats returning to give it another go...
Wrong. All it takes is reforming it back from where the teabaggers and those idiots before them took a slice of "the American Dream" out of it, by a strong and brilliant and rational Congress.
If you have ANY valid point... I'm still waiting to hear it. But I'm giving up any hope.
Of course we can't. You can document what people do, but not what they want (or feel or believe).
Not really. The idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of government.
The Constitution did not attempt to establish a "democracy." The document guarantees states a "republican" form of government, not a democratic form.
Whether or not we can/should dump the Constitution to frame a better democracy seems to be all about how bad the new version would be, given who is running America now. This is a fairly circular negative loop, and leaves us damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I think democracy is still a popular idea, and pointing out that we are not only in imperialism where we haven't enough left over for our domestic budget and must have imperial national security measures as well as being run by banksters brings up a lot of dissonance. OWS was all about democracy in its spirit, and if people were not fully informed on every political wonk issue and just felt the 99 thing, that tells me that people feel that the Constitution is not working, that America is not what it ought to be, and that is something to work with.
I would propose that we begin writing up alternative Constitutions. We will probably borrow a lot from this one if you include the Bill of Rights. Separation of Church and State will survive. We might even get a national bank instead of the Fed.
Amending this Constitution is too difficult. Too many entrenched interests can keep it from being ratified. So, let's go for a new one, but have the going for it be a dynamic conversation on democracy and how we can have it. Unlike the Founders, we can draw upon a number of successful models that came later. At the very least, the national conversation would be a good thing.
Pierpont, the idea is valid but the reality of a new and "improved" Constitution would be a nightmare. How does the Constitution become more and more antidemocratic? It's hardly changed in over 200 years. "People" are becoming more and more antidemocratic. People are abusing the Constitution. People keep changing while the ink stays the same.
http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2005/12/insidious-currents-of-an...
Bush was able to change US history WITHOUT the consent of the People. And you're saying we dare not touch this system?
Bottom line... whenever there are vote weighting/dilution schemes... there's a chance for minority government.
I'm not saying we don't touch the system, but we do have the ability to amend. No need to rewrite.
My sense is that if the US continues on its current course... revolution is the predictable response and following in the steps of the more successful social democracies would be a logical place to look for new beginnings....
The Constitution did not attempt to establish a "democracy." The document guarantees states a "republican" form of government, not a democratic form.
Based on choice of state residence... one's Senate vote can now carry up to 72x more weight if one chooses to live in Wyoming instead of California. And whenever there are such vote weighting/dilution schemes, there's a chance for MINORITY government as we got in 2000.
I'm not saying we don't touch the system, but we do have the ability to amend. No need to rewrite.
Bottom line the bar is SO steep that in 225 years not ONE amendment has changed any of the core antidemocratic features of the Constitution. Here's a breakdown:
http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2012/11/do-those-27-amendments-p...
And as long as a mere 3.5% of the population has a veto of ANY amendment... we're never likely to get ANY meaningful reform.
Of course we can't. You can document what people do, but not what they want (or feel or believe).
What's insidious about our system is it creates disincentives for democratic reforms. Look at Bernie Sanders.... an economic progressive but do you ever hear a peep out of him about true democratic reform? He's a member of perhaps the most malapportioned, antidemocratic legislative body on the planet... and he must know Vermonters would NEVER want to give up their power in the Senate.
Think of it... our system is not just antidemocratic and permits minority government, the system is so insidious it works against ANY talk of democracy.
Democratic? Undemocratic? Democratic? Undemocratic?
Make up your mind.
A new era is being ushered in. Those who cling to antiquated ideals will perish in the great coming transformation. Only those who are able to discern true power in the range of possibilities before them shall emerge triumphant as the shapers of their own destiny. Within the worlds of privilege which they cast for themselves, impervious as sheer ice cliffs from the outside, all the expression of joy and fulfillment of every type will resound in the echoes of life, love, laughter, and yes, also tears and sadness- but never forgetting that EVERYBODY is special!
If you can't understand that, we'll just have to agree that you are hopeless.
Democratic? Undemocratic? Democratic? Undemocratic?
Make up your mind.
Not really. The idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of government.
The Constitution also ENABLED a more powerful government. A government where limiting government power was a high priority proved to be an utter failure of the Articles. Ever hear of them?
If you can't understand that, we'll just have to agree that you are hopeless.
It's one thing for the majority to screw up and have a chance to learn from their mistakes. Our system deprives the public of even that basic right to a civic education.
It would be nice to revisit the structure of the Constition. It seems to me it would probably be beneficial to look at the consulting people ike Jefferson did after he wrote the Constitution when helping other countries creating theirs. There were some pretty distinct and consistent differences (parlimentary system for example) that probably would benefit the political process in this country.
It would be nice to revisit the structure of the Constition. It seems to me it would probably be beneficial to look at the consulting people ike Jefferson did after he wrote the Constitution when helping other countries creating theirs. There were some pretty distinct and consistent differences (parlimentary system for example) that probably would benefit the political process in this country.
More powerful than the Articles of Confederation, which was why Jefferson demanded a Bill of Rights.
The whole point of having a written constitution in the first place is to put limits on its power.
More powerful than the Articles of Confederation, which was why Jefferson demanded a Bill of Rights.
The whole point of having a written constitution in the first place is to put limits on its power.
You seem to have real problems with nuance. Everything to you is black or white.
My, my, such language.
It's one thing for the majority to screw up and have a chance to learn from their mistakes. Our system deprives the public of even that basic right to a civic education.
Maybe some control of out-and-out manipulation and entrapment propaganda would be helpful, both in the government and the private corporate sector — along with many other controls where huge inequalites are found?
Traitors were working for the reconnection of the united American states to the monorchical motherland and her plutochrats, in the earliest history of our Republic and throughout. Yes, you'd think we'd have learned by now.
It would be nice to revisit the structure of the Constition. It seems to me it would probably be beneficial to look at the consulting people ike Jefferson did after he wrote the Constitution when helping other countries creating theirs. There were some pretty distinct and consistent differences (parlimentary system for example) that probably would benefit the political process in this country.
Madison largely wrote the VA constitution, with Jefferson and others. Then Madison began with the VA Con. as his basis for the Federal Constitution, and had to work out some compromises, Virginia plan vs New Jersey Plan, slavery etc.
Jefferson thought Madison's (and Hamilton's) constitution gave too much power to the national government, which is why he and others demanded a Bill of Rights, in order to put limits on the power of the new federal state.
Note, that the Bill of Rights originally limited only the national government, not state governments.
Jefferson thought Madison's (and Hamilton's) constitution gave too much power to the national government, which is why he and others demanded a Bill of Rights, in order to put limits on the power of the new federal state.
As for Madison, he believe the construction of the Constitution made a Bill Of Rights unnecessary... and a Bill Of Rights potentially dangerous. He feared to enumerate some rights placed the others at risk. Madison was clearly correct. That's exactly what's happened... which is why the Right had to buy into a bastardized Second to satisfy a crucial constituent group.
Thank you, Mr. Polisci Undergraduate.
Thank you, Mr. Polisci Undergraduate.
Why didn't you just say so????
Why should I respond to you when you have not responded to my question:
Do you support anti-gun nuts?