Reforming the constitution

[1by1]

So, I'm interested to hear people's ideas and reactions on something I've been thinking about recently.

The tea party often stresses the importance of the US constitution and its supposed perfection, but the truth is that it was written 200 years ago for a very different country to todays USA. Would it not make sense to look again at the constitution and the institutions that make up the american government and make some reforms to better suit it to the modern world?

As an example, the electoral college would definitely be something to be looked at again. The senate also needs to be looked at, especially rules about the filibuster. There are probably countless other things that could be better adapted to the modern world.

I also believe the writers of the constitution had in mind that it would be reformed over time, and would not be treated forever as an infalliable document. The trouble I see with reforming it at the moment is only political extremism. I highly doubt the republican and democrat parties can work together in the bst interests of the nation to rewrite the institutions of the state, regardless, it may still be a good idea to do so.

So what do you think? Should it be reformed? What in particular needs changing? How would you change it? Are such changes possible?

[Brutha]

As an example, the electoral college would definitely be something to be looked at again. The senate also needs to be looked at, especially rules about the filibuster. There are probably countless other things that could be better adapted to the modern world.

The filibuster rules aren't written down in the constitution.

[SnerpGoodWord]

The electoral college serves the same two roles today it did when the country was founded:

1) Isolate presidential election issues. When an election is close, you want the issue contested in one or a few locations, not many.

2) Prevent urban ares from crapping on rural areas to the point where the farmers quit and tell the cities to grow their own damn food.

Under direct democracy, both these problems can be nearly fatal.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

The electoral college serves the same two roles today it did when the country was founded:

1) Isolate presidential election issues. When an election is close, you want the issue contested in one or a few locations, not many.

Why is this so important?

2) Prevent urban ares from crapping on rural areas to the point where the farmers quit and tell the cities to grow their own damn food.

I'm sure we can find a way to do that without negating the votes of people who don't agree with the majority opinion of their state.

[sorter]

No way. The constitution isn't the issue.
Corporate law and excessive corporate influence is.

At this point, corporations would grab even more power.
I'm guessing after the second housing crash people will protest enough
to break up large corporations and take the covers off the Federal Reserve.
I hope.
.

[1by1]

The filibuster rules aren't written down in the constitution.

They are not, but it is the rules in the constitution that permits that filibuster to exist. Reform of the senate could prevent the possibility of having an opposition party that just says no and rather forces them to work together with the party in power for the good of the country.

As for the electoral college, it has on several occasions elected a president who did not receive the majority of the vote, or even finished behind another candidate. In addition, at present the powers of the president seem to be much larger than intended by the framers of the constitution. Again, this isn't unconstitutional, but should it be?

I agree that electing a president by a simple majority is not always the best way, any president should also have broad national support, but the current system does not seem the best way of doing that to me.

I am interested to see that comments here largely defend the constitution, or state that the constitution is not the cause of current problems. My question then is, should the constitution be reformed to remove these problems, even though it is not the direct cause of the problem it is the document that sets out the institutions within which these problems arise. Reforming the constitution would lead to reform of these institutions.

[Brutha]

If you want to understand the current political spirit and what people would write into a constitution look at the EU Lisbon treaty.

It doesn't have the clarity of older constitutions but has a lot of exceptions. If a new US constitution would be written there a good chance that it wouldn't have a clear first amendment.

Again, this isn't unconstitutional, but should it be?

The president doesn't have the constitutional power to declare war. Any decent reading of the constitution tells you that it's unconstitutional for the president to start wars.

My question then is, should the constitution be reformed to remove these problems

If you call for constitutional reform you should understand the real world implications of the current political class rewriting the constitution.

If I could write a constitution that would replace any countries constitution I would be happy, that however doesn't mean that I'm also happy when other people rewrite it.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The president doesn't have the constitutional power to declare war. Any decent reading of the constitution tells you that it's unconstitutional for the president to start wars.

Which reminds me, Obama just bombed Libya without a word to Congress. What the hell, man?

[Brutha]

Which reminds me, Obama just bombed Libya without a word to Congress. What the hell, man?

Yes, that's why I made the point.

[1by1]

The president can take military action without the consent of congress, and indeed this has happened many times, what he cannot do is keep forces in combat for longer than 48 hours (I believe) without consent of congress. Congress is allowed to declare war, however most recent conflicts (since at least Vietnam) never included a declaration of war, hence were performed by presidental powers followed by approval of congress.

If you call for constitutional reform you should understand the real world implications of the current political class rewriting the constitution.

First of all, I'm not necessarily calling for constitutional reform, I'm curious as to if it is desirable (which I believe at the moment it is), what changes should be made, and whether it is actually possible at the moment.

Whether it is possible is very doubtful. When originally written the founders had the ability to create a fresh document and state with much less vested interest. They also had the benefit of being great thinkers, and of having studied much of what has been achieved in the past.

Today there are far too many vested interests, and any resulting reform would probably be heavily influenced by partisan politics and would not be in the best long term interests of the country. Furthermore, many politicians seem incredibly reluctant to learn from other countries, as though it is only possible to create a decent system if Americans are doing so. It would be worthwhile remembering that the founders based their system upon the ancient greek, roman, and modern european governments that existed at that time.

I see this as a shame, since reforming american politics to better suit the modern world and modern america would give the country a much better chance in overcoming many of the problems and rivals that it faces in todays world.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Why is this so important?

Recall the mess in Florida in 2000? The national popular vote was actually closer percentage wise than Florida was (depending on which recount you believe). Point being, the entire nation would have been turned into a zoo the way Florida was for months.

[Brutha]

I see this as a shame, since reforming american politics to better suit the modern world and modern america would give the country a much better chance in overcoming many of the problems and rivals that it faces in todays world.

You can do plenty of political reform without touching the constitution.
You can introduce public financing of elections. You can get rid of the filibuster.
You could even impeach a president for going to war without congressional approval.

The president can take military action without the consent of congress, and indeed this has happened many times, what he cannot do is keep forces in combat for longer than 48 hours (I believe) without consent of congress.

Congress passed an act allows the president in certain cases where it's about defending the country to use troops without asking the congress specifically.

It's a law that congress made to specify in advance that it allows certain actions. It changes nothing about the fact that the president isn't allowed to go to war without approval from congress.

[Criseyde]

We already have a method for this: the amendment process.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Recall the mess in Florida in 2000? The national popular vote was actually closer percentage wise than Florida was (depending on which recount you believe). Point being, the entire nation would have been turned into a zoo the way Florida was for months.

So, convenience is your answer then?

[Le Roi]

I would love the constitution reformed so that the US government has a whole lot less power than they do now.

That would solve a lot. The less power the US government have, the less corporation and individuals would be willing to spend money to influence it and therefore would result in less lobbying and corporate influence.

The less we'd care about the electoral college and who we send up to Washington because they wouldn't have as much power over our lives.

The less we'd care about filibusters, because the laws passed by washington wouldn't really impact us in our lives.

[1by1]

The less we'd care about filibusters, because the laws passed by washington wouldn't really impact us in our lives.

So this is interesting, and actually raises another question I've been thinking about.

To me it sounds as though you would prefer to have no government at all.

So then, what is the point of government? What should it be doing?

As I see it, government should be responsible for:
-national defence,
-police services,
-fire services,
-immigration and emigration,
-playing a role in international organisations and treaties,
-large scale infrastructure projects,
-funding some scientific research (ie that with no immediate obvious payoff, and that which should be independent of commercial bias),
-preventing companies and corporations abusing people,
-maintaining the rights of the people

There may be more that I can't think of at the moment. Would you agree with this list? Or would you propose other things? If you don't agree these should be governmental responsibilities then how would they be done?

Or would you prefer these to be responsibilities of the states alone? What would be the purpose of maintaining a union in that case? Perhaps it would be better to dissolve federal government and exist as separate states?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

So, convenience is your answer then?

I'm not sure how preventing or at least minimizing political crises translates to "convenience".

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by 1by1

Or would you prefer these to be responsibilities of the states alone? What would be the purpose of maintaining a union in that case? Perhaps it would be better to dissolve federal government and exist as separate states?

Despite the occasional Southerners talking out of their butt, states are very very unlikely to try to separate anytime soon because of the power of the US military. Even if the military didn't use it's force to prevent the state from seceding, it would be very unlikely that the majority of a state would decide it was a good idea to give up that protection.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I'm not sure how preventing or at least minimizing political crises translates to "convenience".

Why would you call what happened in Florida 2000 a "crisis"?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Why would you call what happened in Florida 2000 a "crisis"?

Given that the election was fundamentally decided in the courts, I would call that a crisis.

Now imagine the same thing, but carried out in every single local, state, and federal court jurisdiction simultaneously.

[Le Roi]

To me it sounds as though you would prefer to have no government at all.

A government 1/10th the size it is now would be an awesome thing in my mind. Once we get it to that size, we can see if we want to reduce it more or keep it as it is .

So then, what is the point of government? What should it be doing?

I see it as having different layers. The US government is a national government, and it is technically separate from state government. One thing you mentioned, fire service, is something the US government is absolutely not involved. Even most of the police service (99+%) is something the US government is not involved with. The state government and local government provide that.

As for the rest of your list, I think scientific research can be carried out without the involvement of the government. I'd rather that people choose to invest in projects they deem worthwhile than some government bureaucratic system decide where to invest money. Plenty of big universities receive a lot of money from private donors to invest in research and other things.

National Defense can be cut down to 1/10th the size it is now while still defending the United States plenty. We'd have to remove the 100+ military bases overseas, stop the bombing and wars we're fighting against other countries, but doing so would actually improve our national security and the general health of the world.

So, other than that, your list looks much preferable than what the current US government is doing and would solve a lot of problems with the US government that people complain about.

I prefer the US government stays intact though, because it's awesome travelling from one state to another freely, and having a common framework for our country. But keeping it intact doesn't mean we need to concentrate an obscene amount of power in the federal government.

[1by1]

National Defense can be cut down to 1/10th the size it is now while still defending the United States plenty.

I'd agree there, the government spends $700 bn a year on the military. That should definitely be cut.

I included scientific research because:
(i) some research needs to be independent and free of commercial influence (eg medical trials)
(ii) some research has no immediate benefit, but does still have a long term benefit (eg the internet arising from particle physics, numerous spin offs from the space program)
(iii) I'm not sure non-commercial programs can provide enough funding

I think the notable things I missed out are social security and healthcare. I reckon there should be some government involvement in these, but perhaps the states are better placed the federal government.

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by 1by1

So what do you think? Should it be reformed? What in particular needs changing? How would you change it? Are such changes possible?

Such changes are difficult but possible, they are called amendments.

I would like to see us get away from the electoral college too, but as has been said, we would need to be perfect at counting votes and we aren't.

I would like to see line item veto in the constitution. It would do wonders to eliminate pork barrel spending. The president could line out any item in an appropriations bill, then Congress would have to have an override vote on each item.

On the subject of the military, the Constitution gives Congress the right to decare war, but the president is Commander in Chief and there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents him from using the military as he chooses. This has caused tussles between the executive and legislative branch for our whole history. No one ever said the balance of powers woudl be easy.

One interesting thing to think about is whether something not explicitly called out in the Constitution is legal or not. So it doesn't mention that the President could do a line item veto. Does that mean he really could? No one has tried that one. Figuring those kinds of things out ultimately falls to the Supreme Court. People with lifetime appointments. That's why replacing a retiring Justice is a really big deal.

I don't believe the founders did want such a huge overbearing government that we have today. But back then the world was different and not as connected.

[AlmostGodess]

One of the best constitutions in the world was the Constitution of the Soviet Union. It had great, new, well-worded principles and procedures. This did not prevent the Soviet Union from becoming one of the most fascinating dictatorships in the world.

While I am all for reforms, I believe sometimes it is just a way to spend public money and to gain political recognition. Just think about it: you are in office and you receive all the necessary budget to make a reform that will be mentioned in all history books. There are different ways to make reforms and my favorite way is by building and developing what already exists.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

One of the best constitutions in the world was the Constitution of the Soviet Union. It had great, new, well-worded principles and procedures. This did not prevent the Soviet Union from becoming one of the most fascinating dictatorships in the world.

Why was the constitution of the soviet union great?

That is a good point too. All the writing on the paper of the constitution isn't worth anything if the men and women with power are disinclined to follow the writing.

When I was studying for my Masters degree, in one of my international business class, a professor made a very interesting observation. He remarked that in a market-based economy, businesses required a strong rule of law to exist, where the laws are applied fairly and relatively uniformly. In those countries where that doesn't exist, and you have instead a lot more corruption, businesses suffer and the country's economy is quite bad. However, a strong rule of law requires judges, lawyers, policeman, and the culture of the country to be that of honesty. Without honest and non-corrupt judges, lawyers, policemen and civilians, you can't have a strong rule of law. Thus, a country's economy has a strong dependency on the culture of honesty and non-corruption among people.

The same likely applies to the constitution. Unless you have a strong non-corruption culture in a country, and a culture of not using violent means to impose your will upon others, than a constitution is likely not to be worth much.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

Why was the constitution of the soviet union great?

Because it granted all these rights listed below, even the right to work
Article 39. Citizens of the USSR enjoy in full the social, economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR and by Soviet laws. The socialist system ensures enlargement of the rights and freedoms of citizens and continuous improvement of their living standards as social, economic, and cultural development programmes are fulfilled.


Article 40. Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.

This right is ensured by the socialist economic system, steady growth of the productive forces, free vocational and professional training, improvement of skills, training in new trades or professions, and development of the systems of vocational guidance and job placement.
Article 41. Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure.

This right is ensured by the establishment of a working week not exceeding 41 hours, for workers and other employees, a shorter working day in a number of trades and industries, and shorter hours for night work; by the provision of paid annual holidays, weekly days of rest, extension of the network of cultural, educational, and health-building institutions, and the development on a mass scale of sport, physical culture, and camping and tourism; by the provision of neighborhood recreational facilities, and of other opportunities for rational use of free time.
The length of collective farmers' working and leisure time is established by their collective farms.
Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.

This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.
Article 43. Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old age, in sickness, and in the event of complete or partial disability or loss of the breadwinner.

Article 44. Citizens of the USSR have the rights to housing.

This right is ensured by the development and upkeep of state and socially-owned housing; by assistance for co-operative and individual house building; by fair distribution, under public control, of the housing that becomes available through fulfilment of the programme of building well-appointed dwellings, and by low rents and low charges for utility services. Citizens of the USSR shall take good care of the housing allocated to them.
Article 45. Citizens of the USSR have the right to education.

This right is ensured by free provision of all forms of education, by the institution of universal, compulsory secondary education, and broad development of vocational, specialised secondary, and higher education, in which instruction is oriented toward practical activity and production; by the development of extramural, correspondence and evening courses, by the provision of state scholarships and grants and privileges for students; by the free issue of school textbooks; by the opportunity to attend a school where teaching is in the native language; and by the provision of facilities for self-education.
Article 46. Citizens of the USSR have the right to enjoy cultural benefits.

This rights is ensured by broad access to the cultural treasures of their own land and of the world that are preserved in state and other public collections; by the development and fair distribution of cultural and educational institutions throughout the country; by developing television and radio broadcasting and the publishing of books, newspapers and periodicals, and by extending the free library service; and by expanding cultural exchanges with other countries.
Article 47. Citizens of the USSR, in accordance with the aims of building communism, are guaranteed freedom of scientific, technical, and artistic work. This freedom is ensured by broadening scientific research, encouraging invention and innovation, and developing literature and the arts. THe state provides the necessary material conditions for this and support for voluntary societies and unions of workers in the arts, organises introduction of inventions and innovations in production and other spheres of activity.

The rights of authors, inventors and innovators are protected by the state.

Article 48. Citizens of the USSR have the right to take part in the management and administration of state and public affairs and in the discussion and adoption of laws and measures of All-Union and local significance.

Article 49. Every citizen of the USSR has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organisations for improving their activity, and to criticise shortcomings in their work.

Officials are obliged, within established time-limits, to examine citizens' proposals and requests, to reply to them, and to take appropriate action.
Persecution for criticism is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account.
Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.
Article 51. In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests.

Public organisations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.
Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
Article 53. The family enjoys the protection of the state.

Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations.
The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of childcare institutions, by organising and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children's allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance.
Article 54. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.

Article 55. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.

Article 56. The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.

Article 57. Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organisations, and officials.

Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honour and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property.
Article 58. Citizens of the USSR have the right to lodge a complaint against the actions of officials, state bodies and public bodies. Complaints shall be examined according to the procedure and within the time-limit established by law.

Actions by officials that contravene the law or exceed their powers, and infringe the rights of citizens, may be appealed against in a court in the manner prescribed by law.
Citizens of the USSR have the right to compensation for damage resulting from unlawful actions by state organisations and public organisations, or by officials in the performance of their duties.

Article 66. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society. Children are obliged to care for their parents and help them.

Article 67. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to protect nature and conserve its riches.

Article 68. Concern for the preservation of historical monuments and other cultural values is a duty and obligation of citizens of the USSR.

Article 69. It is the internationalist duty of citizens of the USSR to promote friendship and co-operation with peoples of other lands and help maintain and strengthen world peace.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Because it granted all these rights listed below, even the right to work

Ugh! I don't like that constitution . It has a lot of obligations on people. Even rights that it grants to people create huge impositions on other people.

The right to work impose on someone the obligation to hire, whether they need workers or not. That inefficiency leads to an economy that is much worst, and thus the actual jobs available aren't as good as in a free market economy. Eventually that can lead to the collapse of the economy, which is what happened in the USSR.

Same thing with providing free education - it imposes the duty and obligation on people to pay for education via taxes or confiscation of resources, whether that education is any good or not.

The constitution also imposes a lot of obligations on people. The obligation on people to raise their children "correctly" and make them learn socially correct jobs, makes it sounds like it gives the government the right to come in and take the kids away if the parents aren't raising them to have good jobs.

I could go on, but I don't like it.

The US constitution was designed to balance power between different groups, to make it much harder for one person or small group to take over the whole government. I like that approach better. The rights that it gives to people also minimally creates impositions on other people.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

The US constitution was designed to balance power between different groups, to make it much harder for one person or small group to take over the whole government. I like that approach better. The rights that it gives to people minimally creates duty for other people.

Yes, me too. I have great admiration for old Constitutions, like the US Constitution or the French Constitution, that maintained and balanced governments of all kinds, during good times and bad times.