EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Declining Influence of the US Constitution
Losing ground to constitutional competition
Among Americans there remains strong pride about the US Constitution, even though there is widespread support for creating reform amendments to it. Globally, however, what should surprise Americans is a significant loss of respect for it. Other nations, especially those creating new democracies, see better constitutions elsewhere. This is not opinion. It is fact. And it is important to understand this historic shift.
A new university study sends a disturbing message to all Americans that want to hang on to the fiction that the US constitution is not only the world’s best one, but does not need to be improved. Do not mentally block this finding: “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to the study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.
What exists today is far different than what was proudly proclaimed in 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, by Time magazine which calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”
Why has the US Constitution lost standing abroad even though Americans cling to their belief that it is sacred and the world’s best constitution?
The new study examined the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them. This is what they found: “Among the world’s democracies constitutional similarity to theUnited States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s. … the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II.”
Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said. In other words, the US Constitution is old and out of date.
A Supreme Court Justice has also weighed in. In a television interview during a recent visit to Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights. Such a view should be respected.
Should Americans disregard these findings and perspectives? Absolutely not. Only if more people pay attention to this global trend will they better see the need to seriously consider constitutional amendments to improve American democracy. The core problem, however, is one shortcoming of the US Constitution: the great difficulty in amending it. In this regard, noted legal authority Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in his book “Our Undemocratic Constitution” that “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.”
All over the country diverse people and groups on the right and left are advocating for reform amendments, such as getting all private money out of politics, creating term limits for Congress, removing personhood for corporations, and imposing a balanced budget requirement on Congress.
The problem is that Congress is quite unlikely to propose serious reform amendments, which means that the option in the Constitution for an Article V convention of state delegates must be used. But Congress refuses to obey the Constitution by ignoring the hundreds of state applications for a convention from 49 states, more than the single requirement of two-thirds of states in Article V. Learn more at the website of Friends of the Article V Convention, the nonpartisan national group advocating for the first convention.
Consider this: Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. But it would be silly to propose a totally new US Constitution; that is too radical an idea. However, it is amazing that Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, noted that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” Too bad the Constitution gives Congress the power to convene an Article V convention.
Americans should wake up, stop their delusional thinking and recognize that the US Constitution needs to be updated through reform amendments. We the people must pressure Congress to convene the first Article V convention. Otherwise the Supreme Court will continue to make interpretations that are more political than legal in nature and the federal government will continue to erode personal freedoms and liberties. And more and more other democracies will operate under better constitutions.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
102 Comments so far
Show AllAs a Brit, I've been amazed by the way Americans regard their constitution as the holiest of holy writ, and the founding fathers as the wisest men ever to walk the earth. Indeed, I have been flamed a couple of times on Common Dreams for saying that the US Constitution may be flawed. I'm glad someone else has raised their head above the parapet on this one. Let the fireworks begin.
Coming from someone who resides in a monarchy and a system of laws based on the Magna Carta (1215) I understand your confusion.
Our constitution was based on it as well, but unlike your's "Data per manum nostram" our's was signed individually by the members of the constitutional congress. And they wrote in a means and methods for it's revision.
One can only ponder why it has so rarely been revised. In cases like the ERA, I am sure it was motivated by obstructionists who preferred to maintain their control of women. We've just recently seen evidence that this is so with all the hooplah over contraception. It lacked only three states for ratification. We've elected three democratic presidents from three of those states. (Illinois, Arkansas, and Georgia)
Had the ERA been ratified that congressional hearing would not have been about "religious freedom" and solely conducted by males. But "religion" is covered in our constitution, equal rights for women is not.
"THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Not a complicated amendment at all is it. I am in my last few decades of life. One of my greatest disappointments is that my generation dropped the ball on this one. I guess we bought the press releases that the civil rights amendment covered this. We were conned.
People keep pointing out that corporations can’t be people, but they forget that etymologies shift over time. We who do things like eat and breathe are no longer people; we are unpeople. And the meaning of the US Constitution shifted to just a god-damned piece of paper a decade ago.
its worse than that elizabeth
the constitution as written by the founding fathers was stood down in 1871 with the creation of the district of colombia
first off, "Constitution of the united states" was adopted September 17, 1787. it was ratified by 11 states and the first 10 amendments became known as the bill of rights
so far, so good
but - on February 21, 1871 the Forty-First Congress enacted the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62.
this created created a separate form of government for the district of columbia
this act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES - note the capitalization, very important in legal documents. if you look at your bills for your cell, taxes etc your name is all capitols - for legal reasons
after the civil war the united states was bankrupt and this act of 1871 was a refinancing effort that was funded by the rothschilds
they created the district of colombia to empower their new constitution called "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (all caps) - as we know dc has its own laws
the same can be said for the "CITY OF LONDON" which is exactly like dc - a small country inside London Town with its own laws reserved for the bankers who reside there
the vatican is the same
all three of these places have obelisks
but i digress
so the congress is beholden to the corporation not the people
then in 1913 the fed was created by the bankers
:On December 23, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act, also known as the Glass-Owen Bill, was passed. The Republican controlled Senate rammed the bill through when many members of the US Congress were home for the holiday. The President, Dr. Thomas Woodrow Wilson, signed it into law one hour after being passed by the Congress! Somebody very powerful really wanted this law passed. The Federal Reserve System is an independent central bank. Although the President of the United States appoints the chairman of the Fed, and this appointment is approved by the United States Senate, the decisions of the Fed do not have to be ratified by the President, or anyone else in the executive branch of the United States government. Buried in the legislation was the granting of total power over the monetary policies of all US banks. A very curious statement is found in the original 1913 law. SEC. 30. The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Reserved expressly to whom, or what? No definition is provided. This is the entire Section 30 statement! "
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php
then there is admiralty law which everyone should research and understand
our legal system operates under admiralty law - the law of the flag - when you go to court there is always a flag hanging there to reflect the jurisdiction of admiralty law
under admiralty law, for instance, corporations are people
there are many implications - legal and otherwise
so we get CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in 1871. the fed (and income tax) in 1913
under the Constitution of the united states" adopted September 17, 1787 the federal government has no right to tax personal income but it has the sole right to print momey
under CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the congress can create statutory law to do whatever they like, as they so often do, mostly finding in the favor of their employers, the corporations
" I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
~ Woodrow Wilson"
wilson signed the fed into law exactly one hour after it was passed in congress
footnote: truman on the creation of the cia
"For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. "
so if we are considering a revision to the constitution which one are we going to amend - the one written by the founding fathers or the one written by the rothschilds
good job and thanks for the education, medmedude! just for fun a few years ago i searched for the very first legislative action of the first constitutional congress. i though i'd copy and post that initional effort which had the simple published goal of writing an oath of office.
~ "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."~
however, these fourteen little words became summarily buried under another 500 (something like that) pages about how to handle war debts from our revolution. perhaps the founders should have waited as canada did till the brits (in 1913) threw in the towel, "we can no longer afford to rule from across the sea." so from day one the u.s. federal government set about solving financial problems the old-fashioned way by passing the debt onto the next generation.
born free?
no!
each new generation is born deeper and deeper in debt from the previous generation's excesses. well, Nature has been about tapped out of precious resources nor can those so called "renewable" resources keep apace with our all-consuming spiraling rate of consumption.
we need scrap the old plan, forgive the meaningless paper debt to begin in earnest repaying the colossal debt to Nature.
it is my understanding that admiralty law only applies where a USer flag bordered with yellow fringe is shown.
no - when you are born you come through your mother's birth canal - ergo by water therefore you are subject to admiralty law
your mother signs your birth certificate - a registration of your body with the corporation - and you are pledged as a debt/asset to the corporation
when she signs your mother is known as the "informant" - which is to say she is notifying the corporation that they now have a new asset/debt
-
then you are issued a certificate number - this appears on the back of your ss card. then you are bundled up with the rest of us and sold as stock on the stock market
that's how it goes...
Nice work, medmedude! Many years ago I read a book called "Vultures in Eagle's Clothing" by Lynne Meredith. She was/is an attorney who spent two years of her life researching the corruption in governement and the Federal Reserve Act. The book was fascinating and gave all the legal/illegal details about how we've been screwed from the day of its inception (right up to today).
Since then, very few who have walked the Halls of Captiol Hill have given any respect to our original Constitution and its founders.
Excellent. I vote for revising the one one written by the Rothchilds.
"The problem is that Congress is quite unlikely to propose serious reform amendments, which means that the option in the Constitution for an Article V convention of state delegates must be used. But Congress refuses to obey the Constitution by ignoring the hundreds of state applications for a convention from 49 states, more than the single requirement of two-thirds of states in Article V. "
so how exactly are the people supposed to put pressure on congress ? perhaps we can write letters to our corrupt representatives or sign a petition requesting a constitutional convention, write a letter to our corporate newspaper, support third party candidates for the next generation.
although i appreciate the sentiment of the essay, i have to ask myself what historical event inaugurated the constitution we use today? the necessity of putting pressure on congress is a very polite term - considering the magnitude of the crises we face in the 21st century.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." - Common Sense, January 10, 1776
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Common Sense, January 10, 1776
...peace...
Congress will never do what is necessary to protect democracy ... of, by and for THE PEOPLE ... being the 99% ... real, living, breathing human beings.
Congress will not do what is necessary to protect democracy ... by shutting down lobbyists; shutting down their own profitting off of their connections, influence, information and legislation; overturning Supreme Court decision allowing the 'corporate being' to supplant constitutional rights of humans; shutting down corporate welfare ... subsidies; shutting down government handouts to failing banks, 'investment' firms and 'insurance' companies; implementing term limits; implementing campaign finance reform.
Congress will not do what is necessary to protect democracy ... by assuring we never again allow POTUS to single-handedly call for/implement acts of interference, aggression, occupation, destruction of soveriegn nations without recourse(re: Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) and by REQUIRING public investigation and legal ramifications of any POTUS and/or advisors involved in any or all of these acts.
Our Constitution is all WE(the 99%) have ... with Congress holding themselves above and apart of the 'WE' ... thus will perform to protect themselves and not 'WE' ... the 99%!
The Supreme Court is assuring this and as I see it will continue to further erode what remains.
Congress has too much to lose by protecting our democracy and our Constitution by updating accordingly to eliminate corruption, abuse and inappropriate influence as it is they ... recipient, perpetrator and decision maker!
The Constitution of the United States of America is NOT "sacred" to Americans(sic).
It most certainly is NOT sacred to the corporatists who are elected by the majority of the people.
When you have Presidents and Congresses who swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and then spend most of their time in office ignoring (at best) and attacking (more commonly) the rights of the people which are spelled out in the constitution, why would anyone bother creating another phony document of deception?
THIS is the real situation in this ever-more sadistic nation.
Compared to the corporate takeover which is now the status quo in this nation, Mussolini was an amateur.
Any changes to the constitution by these corporate so-called leaders would most likely include more religious and military control with mandatory corporate imprisonment for the minority deviants who still believe in human rights and thus cannot comply.
“I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights."
Don't hold your breath.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is getting just as shredded and disrespected by the Harper Corporate Occupation Government, so don't get your hopes up, ok?
It's also coming to light that the Harper Government may have seriously tampered with the results and process during the the last federal election, which is looking more and more like election fraud, and is basically daring the Canadian public to do something about it.
My guess is that as soon as you have Corporations calling the shot and giving politicians their marching orders, you've already lost.
I'm a Canadian, and goddamn it, we haven't "already lost".
I guess you'd have told the Egyptians to get out of Tahrir Square and go home. You must have thought the Tunisians and the Yemenis should give up and let their dictators hold on. Syrians -- you've lost. Tell Assad you're sorry and maybe he'll let you live. Lech Walesa -- don't you know you're up against a gigantic power? Don't waste your time.
I know, corporate power is far more oppressive than Assad's guns. That's why it's right for Canadians to give up. It's so much tougher here.
Consider what would be developed today, and who would do the developing? We have all the "G" meetings setting policy and agendas already. We have business men and consultants meeting behind closed doors in vague little committees setting the guidelines for all our lives. Standard and Poors ratings shake our "confidence". Congress has the lowest approval rating in history but they give us the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act.
Who do we think would be formulating a new constitution? I think I prefer to stick with the one I know, rather than think a new one would be more in my interests.
If you don't think those that were "too big to fail" will be writing the text of a new constitution, I have a bridge I can sell you. We should have ratified the ERA.
Good points. The 55 delegates tot the original Constitutional Convention were practical polilticians, sent by their legislatures to protect their own interests. A convention held today would not be recognizable or praised. For example, the First Amendment would be decimated. And buisiness interests would give eminent domain sacred status - no more "just" compensation nonsense.
Sheepherder sez: "For example, the First Amendment would be decimated."
***
It already has. You would simply be codifying it.
Those who think the 1787 Constitution will protect them from the kind of change they fear are fooling themselves. Only a real, active, working democracy can do that.
This kind of "I like what I know" thinking is hidebound conservatism, based on fear of change and a complete lack of confidence in democracy. If all we have to protect our rights is a piece of parchment and the courts then America has failed completely.
I don't think it has. I think Americans are just as capable of democracy as anyone else. I'm sorry so many "progressives" have given up on them.
Leezasky:
........We don't lack confidence in, or fear democracy. We lack confidence in those who would develop a new constitution totally geared toward totalitarian collectivism; the power of the corporate-controlled State to control the people and basically all of humanity.
Do you prefer total enslavement over freedom?
Another good book is Daniel Lazare's "Frozen Republic-How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy" I will have to read "Our Undemocratic Constitution" sometime.
Just like the Bible, in order to make progress, the constitution needs to be questioned, and more importantly, we need to fight for the right to question it, because the powers that be don't want us to- it serves them well to be able to control things by keeping it just the way it is, easily manipulated by corporations, which own both political parties. And the constitution cements a two party system.
Where exactly in the constitution does it limit elections or governance to only two parties?
There is no formal statement in the constitution forbidding many parties. And, in fact, many parties put forward candidates in many places.
The problem is not that there a law against third parties. The problem is that the way the constitution is set up, it makes it almost impossible for third parties to win.
The Electoral College -- an archaic relic that should have been dumped long ago -- requires a candidate to win a plurality in a state in order to win any electoral votes. So even if a third party were to win 25% of the vote in each state, and one old party were to get 38% in each state, the only party to win ANY electoral votes would be the 38% party. The other two would get nothing. These odds make it very difficult to mount a third party campaign.
The Electoral College also rewards regional concentration of the vote. That is, a candidate who wins a plurality of the vote in five states, but only 10% across the country, would have a substantial electoral vote, while a candidate who won 25% in each of the 50 states would likely have none. Thus 10% of the popular vote could yield more than 10% of the electoral vote, while 25% could yield 0% of the electoral votes. Against those odds it is really hard to mount a campaign.
The history of American elections bears this out. Ross Perot won millions of votes, and no electoral votes. Teddy Roosevelt, a far stronger candidate, did win electoral votes, but only succeeded in handing the victory to Woodrow Wilson, who won the Solid South outright, while Roosevelt split the rest of the country with him and the Republican candidate. The only election in which there were several strong parties that won electoral votes was the 1860 election, whose result was part of the reason for the Secession of the South, which had voted strongly against the narrow winner, Abraham Lincoln.
A national election based solely on the popular vote, with two rounds to ensure that the winner got more than 50% of the vote, would be more democratic. It would mean there would be no more "battleground states" that get all the campaigning, while "safe states" get none. Some of the safe states are California, Texas, New York, Georgia, Michigan -- all with big populations, all forgotten in the race to win Nevada, West Virginia and Iowa -- much smaller states. This same problem holds for the majority of congressional seats, where the states (under the constitution) have the right to draw federal boundaries, leading to most seats being safely Red or Blue. In the 2000 election I had a chance to check how many seats weren't even contested. There were more than 25, 8 in Florida alone.
The Senate is grossly undemocratic, with small states like Wyoming and Alaska having just as many votes as states with many times their population. Thus a combination of the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Delaware, and Alaska, with barely two million people, can outvote California, Texas, New York, Illinois and Florida, with about 100 million people. No argument about the "need" to protect small states from the dominance of big states can justify such a disparity. But it's right there in the constitution -- the result of a crass deal done in 1787 to get the thing adopted..
So a third party would have to be able to build a regional base sufficient to guarantee winning electoral votes; a national base sufficient to make it a "player" in all parts of the country, a presidential candidate able to raise enough money and appeal to enough people to rally a regional base and nationwide support, and be ready to lose a few times before the new party becomes rooted enough to move beyond its regional base.
If it wished to contest congressional seats, it would have to be able, again, to mobilize enough support in some districts to win, while making a decent showing all across the country. That would mean overcoming the gerrymandering that guarantees a substantial number of seats to each old party (a deal that makes them both winners in every election).
And it would have to run candidates in enough Senate seats, which might not be located in its regional base, to win at least some and demonstrate its viability as a "real" party.
I suggest that such a feat is almost impossible. A third party would thus be a protest party only, and wind up like Ralph Nader, being blamed by one side for letting the other side win without having the slightest chance of winning himself.
Only a thorough overhaul of the electoral system would open the door to a third party to move beyond being a regional protest party, condemned to a short life and many, many defeats.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit third parties. It just makes them very, very unlikely to ever win. And that's pretty much the same thing, which is why the only time a third party was successful was when the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 1850's.
A few states apportion their electoral votes among (or between) the candidates running according to the number of votes each received, instead of the winner-takes-all custom now most common. Using the proportional award of electoral votes in all 50 states would reflect the popular vote much more closely than the current method -- and is a change the country could make without having to amend the constitution.
So why don't more states do just that. That's the real question isn't it? If California can pass Prop 8 why can't other states pass this?
I am thinking some third party should have prefected the techniques the republicans used to oust the Whigs by now and acted on it. Why haven't they?
How has the bible progressed?
Good article and thanks for writing it. The U.S. Constitution was a successful counter-revolution that put the rich in control of the new republic. Those who consider it a sacred document, at least the majority of them, probably have not read it and/or considered it in the context of its time. One of the main motivations for it was creating a federal tax that would transfer wealth from citizens to bankers and give the federal government enforcement power to collect the tax. It's a bit of dense read at times, but E. James Ferguson, "Power of the Purse," names the names and describes the circumstances. There is a large body of literature on this topic that goes back (at least) to Charles Beard's 1913 book, "An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution." Really, it's an argument that goes back to the time -- Federalists and Anti-Federalists. And it goes back before that as well . . .
"The Declining Influence of the US Constitution
Losing ground to constitutional competition"
Is this a popularity contest or a reality show concept? Are we voting for the Next Great Constitution? Or are we packaging, copyrighting and selling carbon copies of it, and we're losing market share? Is there a "like" button, or shall we "friend" it?
We are shallow aren't we. Who do we think are going to represent us at that Constitutional Convention? I would imagine they'll be appointed like the Electoral College or other policy committees by party chairmen.
Yes, you're right, democracy is truly dead in America.The people can do nothing but suffer under the rule of their overlords. Luckily, they are permitted to whine about their plight, but they may soon have that right taken away too.
Are you an American, or a feudal peasant? Haven't you noticed that the Egyptian people got rid of their dictator, as did the Tunisian people, the Yemeni people, the peoples of Eastern Europe, the people of South Africa, the people of the Philippines, of much of Latin America, of Burma? Haven't you noticed that the people of Syria have still not been discouraged even after a year of violent repression?
But on second thought, you're right. It's easy to face down guns, dictators, torturers for "opaque, academic" concepts like democracy. What's hard is figuring out how to overcome the spin doctors and swindlers who rule America. No wonder Americans are so cynical. It's because they have it so goddamn tough.
All Resistance is Defensive
Having no doubt heard it from Big Dick, little george reportedly declared that the Constitution was just a "goddam piece of paper". Since SCOTUS obviously agrees, the discussion is over.
The 1% don't need a "constitution" to protect them, they have attorneys on retainer. I see all this talk of revising the constitution through a constitutional convention as a means to privatize our constitution. And their marketting consultants have probably told them it will work. The 99% won't be selecting the delegates to this convention.
So you've simply given up on American democracy. The corporations rule, and there's no remedy for that. We just have to play along and hope that one day they'll get tired of ruling over us and go back to making widgets.
This kind of passive, depressed hopelessness is the major problem with American progressives. It stems from having been beaten so often they have lost all self confidence. It also stems from a constitutional system that loads the dice in favor of the rich. And, dare I say it, it stems from the fact that so many progressives are doing OK under the present system, and can live with it, though under feeble protest.
By yielding to such comfortable despair, they have in effect handed American politics to the rich, on the understanding that "austerity" and repression will not affect them directly. That's why real change will have to come from the working people, the poor, the excluded, and why it will be resisted by many "progressives".
I am not yielding at all. I simply saying changing the constitution radically is not the answer. It's a ploy, by those in power.
Calling for a new Constitution is one of those lofty and opaque ideas that emanate from Ivory Tower thinkers. It sounds great on paper, just like a Constitution theoretically does.
As a practical matter, keep in mind that the US is in a state of (continual) war. National Security trumps the commonweal every time. No meaningful social change will occur until the US is no longer a nation 'at war' but a nation at peace.
If you don't agree that America is at war, please explain the following, which comes from the Springsteen article on the left of the main CD page
- Obama's escalation in Afghanistan, drone attacks in six countries -
America is trapped in this insanity by law. We change the law, and the insane and DAFT war will end.
Change the whole Constitution?
There is no need. End Public Law 107-40 which is the bane of our existence and the insane and DAFT war to forever prevent future terrorism will end. This war has gone on for over 10 years - this law has been in effect for 10 years, and most people still ignore it, evidently hoping that all the insanity will cease by itself, evidently believing that politicians will not use every power given to them by law for their own purposes (certainly not for ours), evidently believing that new words on paper will magically make the country a better place.
Change, repeal, kill this egregious law and we will see that there is no need to replace the Constitution.
I say again - ignoring this law does not and will not end our troubles.
End Public Law 107-40.
(I suggest yet again that we do this by drafting Barbara Lee for President, the only person to vote against this law, the only person to continually vote against war).
It's not the words on paper that matter, it's the people we put in charge. Put a true anti-war hero in charge, and things will change. I guarantee it!
I am with you. I vow to vote for the candidate willing to repeal this law.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm
Thanks for a far more realistic plan than to organize to get a constitutional convention.
The plan to elect Barbara Lee President is getting down to brass tacks, dealing with what CAN be done, right now, in the present, not the distant future.
Now, if only Ms. Lee would declare her candidacy and raise a few hundred million bucks, we can go ahead with this.
Many people in America opposed the constitution at its ratification, perhaps the majority. They had a lot to say. The senate existed solely to quash the vote of the majority in the house. The federal judiciary, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the elitist senate, would serve for life. Many pointed out exactly what happened -- that the members of the supreme court would come from the 1% (they didn't use that term back then, but that concept) and would rule in favor of the 1%. Then Justice John Marshall ruled that the supreme court could overturn (declare unconstitutional) the laws enacted by the democratically elected congress (at least the house was at the time). This concept that courts could overturn legislation did not exist in English common law and does not exist in English law today. The idea that a court could find a law unconstitutional came from the head of James Otis, a Massachusetts lawyer who defended American merchants in the Writs of Assistance and other cases.
But perhaps the biggest opposition came to the "standing army." The majority of Americans did not want a standing army, because they felt their local militias had won the war and the Atlantic ocean would protect them. But Hamilton and Madison and the rich merchants they supported wanted a standing army and navy to protect their business interests. And they won. And the standing army has protected business interests around the world. And as the so-called anti-federalists (history got the names backwards) predicted, the standing army would come to dominate society.
As the Federal Farmer said in his thirteenth letter that "we all agree, that a large standing army has a strong tendency to depress and inslave the people."
Massachusetts: "And as in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature."
Pennsylvania & North Carolina: "And as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up."
Maryland & Delaware: "That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept without consent of the legislature."
Here are some comments by the anti-federalist who called himself John Dewitt:
They shall have also the power of raising, supporting and establishing a standing army in time of peace in your several towns, and I see not why in your several houses."
Where lies the security of the people? What assurances have they that either their taxes will not be exacted but in the greatest emergencies, and then sparingly, or that standing armies will be raised and supported for the very plausible purpose only of cantoning them upon their frontiers? There is but one answer to these questions. — They have none.
The advocates at the present day, for a standing army in the New Congress pretend it is necessary for the respectability of government. I defy them to produce an instance in any country, in the Old or New World, where they have not finally done away the liberties of the people. — Every writer upon government, — Lock, Sidney, Hamden, and a list of other have uniformly asserted, that standing armies are a solecism in any government; that no nation ever supported them, that did not resort to, rely upon, and finally become a prey to them.
It is universally agreed, that a militia and a standing body of troops never yet flourished in the same soil. Tyrants have uniformly depended upon the latter, at the expense of the former. Experience has taught them, that a standing body of regular forces, where ever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary.
There is no instance of any government being reduced to a confirmed tyranny without military oppression; and the first policy of tyrants has been to annihilate all other means of national activity and defence, and to rely solely upon standing troops.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance110.html
"They had a lot to say. The senate existed solely to quash the vote of the majority in the house."
The standard reason for the existence of the Senate was to prevent large population states from dominating the government. But your phrasing amounts to the same thing.
"The standard reason for the existence of the Senate was to prevent large population states from dominating the government."
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Today it would be like allowing California, New York and Florida set the agenda for the whole country.
What a relief that Wyoming, Alaska, and Delaware set the agenda. Their tiny populations have so much more wisdom than the tens of millions of people who they can outvote in the Senate.
Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by a tiny fraction of the people artificially set up as more powerful than tens of millions of their "equals".
Let us use an example.
The Southwestern portion of British Columbia has the majority of its population. Much of the wealth comes from the rest of the province in the way of electricity, lumber coal, Natural gas and the like.
Now the population in the Southwest decides it needs more electricity and more natural gas to fuel its industry and they determine this best done by damming up more rivers in the North and allowing more fracking in the wilderness areas.
Those sparsely populated regions resist wanting to protect their environment and not wanting to see lands they live on flooded and resource wealth sent out of the region to make the poeple in the lower mainland rich while they themselves suffer high unemployment.
Do you not think that the people who LIVE and WORK in a region should have more say in what happens to the landscape and environmnet they live in then people who live 1000 miles away, even if the population is smaller in those hinterlands?
If Canadians in Ontario voted in favor of the pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat should their vote outweigh that of the much smaller population that lives in its path?
If the people of Vancouver decided they wanted to dump all their trash in Cache creek should mere population size suggest the people of Cache Creek could not say no?
The people in the rest of BC have the right to protest, to educate, to elect representatives, and to use the courts. They shouldn't have the right simply to veto what the majority wants because they happen to reside somewhere. (I write as someone who is strongly opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline. I guess the people there have persuaded me, a Torontonian -- and many others across Canada).
I would turn your question around: Do the people who live in a certain area have the absolute right to decide what happens in that area, even against the wishes of the provincial majority? If so, what right does the majority have? To make requests? To beg? To look after the Lower Mainland and leave Northern BC alone? OK, how will the Northerners raise the money they need to have the programs they want? All by themselves? No help from the Lower Mainland folks?
I say they have every right. They LIVE there.
Were your theories ascribed to the peoples of the North would have saw all their wealth stripped away years ago. The vast majoirty of Canadians WANTED that Mackenzie valley pipeline over the objections of the people that LIVED there.
I am also not one to protect the rights of Capitalists who have more money to invest in remote areas over the peoples that LIVE in those areas by extracting that wealth in return for that Capital.
I am not one who ascribes to the "Tyranny of the majority" which would have prevented gay Marriage in Canada or the right of Natives to vote.
I am not one who feels that the people of Ontario and Western canada have a right to dictate to the peoples of Quebec the types of laws they should have and the language they should speak.
I am no fan of "colonialism" where the New York Cities and cities like Toronto and Vancouver can dictate policy to peoples of Cranbrook and Sudbury and Oswego just because they have a larger population.
This would be a recipe for disaster.
If people in Vancouver wish to demand that people in Cache creek be forced to accept all the garbage of the Lower mainland , then those people should also be forced to LIVE there and suffer the effects of those toxins.
The Natives of Ft Chipeywan do have a right to demand their waters not be polluted by the Oil Companies and the City of Ft MacMurray even if they are outnumbered when the population is counted.
If you would go to that area this is exactly what happens. The Government claims one small group should not be able to dictate how an area be devevloped to a larger group.
Now if after all that the peoples in New York City do not want to invest in building more tar sands extraction plants to extract the oil and poison those people in Ft Chipeywan, then I am sure the people of Ft Chipeywan would welcome them leaving.
THINK about what you are saying. Apply it to Appalachia and the people living there. If the people living in those mountains are growing sick and dying from that Coal being hauled out of there do you really believe that peoples in New York City by virtue of population size have more right to determine what happens to that Coal?
It absolute nonsense.
We might as well say that the people of Kenya have no right to their own resources because there are more people living in China that want it.
I agree. And I like your style!
They live there! Why should people that don't live in a place prescribe the living conditions for areas in which they do not live? It's really that basic. And it's something we lose sight of all the time. And it's always the first thing revisionists want to change. It should be the last thing. They know if they can change that, they can come up with the votes to do whatever they like to the rest of us.
State boundaries are arbitrary. Real democracy is rule by the people, no matter where they are placed within artificial boundaries. Attributing more votes to a person who lives in one place rather than another is undemocratic.At its worst, it allows a small minority to veto the wishes and override the needs of a large majority. A situation in which North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, and Delaware can override California, Texas, and New York is outrageous, like the "Rotten Boroughs" that were abolished in England in the 19th century.
I think many times Calfironia, Texas, New York and Florida need to be overridden. They know little of what goes on in Wyoming, Delaware and North Dakota, Alaska or Hawaii. Why should they alone set the rules for all of us? Because there's more of them. Let them set their state laws, but when it comes to national laws I think there needs to be a little balancing.
I read the study and it really draws no concrete conclusions. I am thinking the fact that most countries are not using our constitution as a model has more to do with the low public opinion of the US today globally and little to do really with any flaws in our constitution. We're not exactly a model of noble/nobel practices are we? Preemptive wars, torture, indefinite detention, predatory business practices not exactly the ultimate role model are we. We really are "ugly Americans" today.
No, the reason most countries are not using the archaic, outdated, and dysfunctional US Constitution as a model is because it doesn't work very well. People have learned some stuff since 1787, and they think it might be a good idea to put that stuff into their new constitution.
Show me a draft! And let me pick. Age is not always an good indication obsolescence. Show us all what you've learned and let us judge.