# Editorial -The U.S. Constitution: Time to update, to ensure a functioning government



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 4, 2016)

The U.S. Constitution: Time to update, to ensure a functioning government

It has become increasingly clear that the U.S. Constitution is in dire need of amendment. The purpose of having a government in the first place is to give the country a means to deal with pressing national problems, yet the seemingly permanent deadlock that has gripped our institutions for the past two decades makes it impossible to carry out this essential function. It is time for a change in how we govern ourselves, or rather in how we are currently failing to govern ourselves.

Americans cherish the Constitution, and rightly so, but it is important to note that it is the Constitution as amended that we revere. No one wants to go back to the original document alone. It was amendments to that first version that ended slavery, defined citizenship, mandated equal protection of the laws for everyone, provided for the direct election of senators, granted women and 18-year-olds the right to vote, and made any number of other changes that have given us the free country we take for granted today.

In the wee hours of the morning, I ponder a variety of constitutional catastrophes that we have set ourselves up for. For instance, a third-party candidacy throws the choice of president into the House of Representatives, where a partisan majority chooses the candidate who lost the popular vote — perfectly constitutional, but a travesty of democracy. Possibly a candidate sues over the vote count in a decisive state, and the Supreme Court votes 4-4 along strictly party lines, and we still don’t know who the next president will be and have no clear way to resolve the question.

We can easily imagine the Senate and the White House held by opposite parties, and the Senate refuses on principle to confirm any Supreme Court nomination indefinitely, or perhaps carries the battle further and refuses to confirm any cabinet secretary or other senior appointed official. Moreover, the House becomes so rent by bitter partisanship that it is not able to conduct any business at all and grinds to a halt. Possibly an increasingly dismayed president, rather than watch the country slip helplessly into paralysis, resorts to broad executive orders of increasingly dubious legality, and ignores an evenly split Supreme Court.



I suspect readers on both right and left can easily add their own particular nightmares to the list. Moreover, all of the above assumes a certain amount of domestic and global tranquillity; the danger increases exponentially should we face an international crisis or an economic emergency at the same time the machinery of government is jammed.

Any government needs both legitimacy and efficiency in order to do its job. In the Anglo-American tradition, legitimacy has been provided by the legislature, efficiency by the executive. If the acts of the government lack legitimacy through legislative approval, the government becomes a tyranny. If the duly constituted executive authority shows that it is unable to carry out its functions efficiently, support for the whole government is undermined and the society slips toward anarchy.

The chief problem we face today is that the balance of power between the president and Congress is frozen at an 18th-century stage of development. At that time the great struggle for liberty had been for Parliament to gain power over the Crown; consequently, the founders were intent on strengthening legislative power and constraining that of the executive. The question we face today is whether such a balance still serves the national interest, and our failure to resolve virtually any serious national problem in recent years suggests that in fact it does not.

To strengthen the president’s constitutional position, therefore, the following amendments should be adopted:

• Provide for the direct election of the president by popular vote, eliminating the Electoral College.

• Permit the president to introduce legislative proposals directly onto the floor of both House and Senate, to end the willful obstructionism that has paralyzed those bodies. Amendments would be permitted only with the president’s concurrence, and the proposal would need to be voted up or down by simple majority. If not voted on within 60 days, the president’s proposal would been deemed approved and become law.

• Appoint Supreme Court justices for staggered 18-year terms, with a vacancy normally coming up every two years, to ensure any president the right to appoint at least two justices as a more or less routine matter of business.

• Require Congress to act on all executive nominations within 60 days, including those to the Supreme Court, by simple majority vote. If not rejected during that period, the appointment would be considered automatically confirmed.

We also need to strengthen the electoral process in general, and clear up some of the major disputes that have clogged the system in recent years. Such measures would include:

• Provide public funding for all electoral campaigns for national office, with strict limits on private contributions from individuals and organizations, to lessen the impact of money on politics.


• Require compact and contiguous electoral districts for all House seats, enforceable by the courts, to restrict the effects of gerrymandering.

• Provide for federal supervision of all national and state elections where necessary to ensure that voting rights are not compromised by inadequate facilities, long lines or restrictive registration requirements. The test of any proposed restriction should be its likely effect; intent need not be proved.

• Pass an Equal Rights Amendment that would ban discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation to ensure the equality of all persons.

• Clarify that Congress may pass legislation to control the sale or possession of assault weapons and similarly regulate other forms of firearms, treating the Second Amendment in much the same way we changed the 18th Amendment on Prohibition by adopting the 21st when we found its original purpose was miscarrying.

This sounds like a heavy order of needed reforms, as indeed it is. But such revisions have tended to come in clusters in our history; the original 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights in 1791; the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments following the Civil War, and the 16th through 19th in the decade of the 1910s.


There are many other issues that need to be dealt with but that do not need to be handled on the constitutional level, such as health care, immigration and education. Once we have regained a functioning government, these and similar questions can be handled through normal political processes.

Generational theory proposes that every fourth generation, or roughly every 80 years, we find it necessary to reconfigure our government, such as when we chose independence in 1776, when we preserved the Union and abolished slavery in the 1860s, and when we entrusted government with broad responsibility for economic and social welfare under FDR in the 1930s. We are now 80 years past that last major readjustment, and a new generation, the millennials, is at hand and rising to political power. Prodding the rest of us to take up this long list of currently needed reforms is the historical task that awaits them.

This July 4th we will mark the 240th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Let us hope that by the 250th anniversary we will have a working government again, and without having to go through one of the nightmare scenarios that can be imagined. It may be useful to recall Benjamin Franklin’s reply to the lady who accosted him as he came out of a session of the Constitutional Convention. She asked, “Dr. Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic?” To which he replied, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 4, 2016)

He makes a few good points, but I take issue with banning the Electoral College and going with popular vote. Doing so immediately takes away our status as a Republic vs. a Democracy. We've seen on social meida time-after-time what mob-mentality gets you.

In addition, I do not believe that this statement is as true as I wish it was.

_"Americans cherish the Constitution"_


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 4, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> He makes a few good points, but I take issue with banning the Electoral College and going with popular vote. Doing so immediately takes away our status as a Republic vs. a Democracy. We've seen on social meida time-after-time what mob-mentality gets you.
> 
> In addition, I do not believe that this statement is as true as I wish it was.
> 
> _"Americans cherish the Constitution"_



What's the benefit, in your opinion, of the Republic method of voting vs popular vote? I'm not setting you up for anything I'm just curious.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2016)

He wants the Constitution changed with many of those changes limiting Congress' power? He'd have Congress vote on Congressional reform?

How cute.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 4, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> He wants the Constitution changed with many of those changes limiting Congress' power? He'd have Congress vote on Congressional reform?
> 
> How cute.



Getting them to vote on anything is remarkable. We have a failing legislative branch, too many Presidential decrees, and a Supreme Court with an empty seat. Now what was it you are asking?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 4, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> What's the benefit, in your opinion, of the Republic method of voting vs popular vote? I'm not setting you up for anything I'm just curious.



Because popular vote is no different than mob-rule.  State's rights have been eroded so much already that it is difficult to see the uniqueness of what we used to have - I do not want to turn this into an 'issues" thread so I am just listing some examples here...but drinking age and DWI's at 0.08 are two good ones..  The feds cannot dictate "21" and "0.08" so instead they threaten to take away federal highway money funds.  It's all the same.  Gay marriage and abortion are similar examples.  I believe that a state should be able to have a say in those discussions, not be forced to comply. 

  I was going to go into a paragraph or two about states being represented and not forgotten, but I think this article from Slate does a better job than I could.

In Defense of the Electoral College


.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 5, 2016)

So, the key document that limits governmental power over the populace (a major point in the founding of this country), allows for State's rights, and a judiciary appointed, reviewed and approved by all 3 branches of government needs to be amended because the government needs more power over the people and the states and needs to limit the influence of a continuity of judiciary thought across administrations.  In other words, let's just toss everything the Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary soldiers held dear and fought to achieve because we're not European enough anymore?  Look at what being European has gotten Europe lately...

Maybe we should get people to read and understand what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence actually guarantee, and how those guarantees are secured by a limited government.  Personal responsibility not handouts, Pursuit of happiness- not free stuff, Life and Liberty - not servitude and a police/nanny state.

Wow, just wow...


----------



## AWP (Jul 5, 2016)

x SF med said:


> Post



You need to stop with all that thinking and readin' an' shit. Clearly, you don't understand how America works. Now, get back in front of your TV and do what they tell you. 

Next you're going to suggest we read the Federalist Papers or something. Sheeeeeit.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

x SF med said:


> Maybe we should get people to read and understand what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence actually guarantee, and how those guarantees are secured by a limited government.  Personal responsibility not handouts, Pursuit of happiness- not free stuff, Life and Liberty - not servitude and a police/nanny state.



People are not the problem.  Our Government is completely out of control.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 5, 2016)

Part of the problem is we have "smart" people like this in power:  a federal judge who says there is no value in reading the Constitution.

Richard Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 5, 2016)

Leaving the Constitution alone. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way to give the most power and freedom to the people. IF we want to change it there is a way to do it. :wall:


----------



## x SF med (Jul 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> People are not the problem.  Our Government is completely out of control.



Because of the lack of interest "of the people, by the people and for the people..." just sayin.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

There needs to be a states convention and we need to fire all those assholes and start over. I didn't see one thing on that list that would improve our government, that addresses our national debt, the unchecked laws being passed by a completely corrupt government.

Term limits (congress, senate and Supreme Court).
No corporate donations for any elected office.
One session per a year for passing laws, no special sessions or late night votes. Just emergency sessions for war and natural disasters.
Congressional amendment for a balanced budget and national debt ceiling. 
Mandatory constitutional education in high school, and not by today's bullshit standard. A full on course with strict testing on actual verbiage, etc.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 5, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> There needs to be a states convention and we need to fire all those assholes and start over. I didn't see one thing on that list that would improve our government, that addresses our national debt, the unchecked laws being passed by a completely corrupt government.
> 
> Term limits (congress, senate and Supreme Court).
> No corporate donations for any elected office.
> ...



And how about maybe half the salary, so they have to hold down some real jobs concurrently...it's how they do it in most states....


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> And how about maybe half the salary, so they have to hold down some real jobs concurrently...it's how they do it in most states....



I'd go further and say no salary and only cover expenses, it's a national service not a career. But that won't fly. But yes, a reasonable salary of the average working man, and how they got to pay themselves so much and give themselves annual raises is simply crazy.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 5, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'd go further and say no salary and only cover expenses, it's a national service not a career. But that won't fly. But yes, a reasonable salary of the average working man, and how they got to pay themselves so much and give themselves annual raises is simply crazy.



True, public service, and I would be down with even per diem and expenses.

One of my biggest issues with elected office is that it has become a profession, not a public service.  How can they possibly represent us if they haven't been us for 10, 20, 30 years??


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

Yep-Yep, I agree.


----------



## digrar (Jul 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> http://www.startribune.com/the-u-s-...to-ensure-a-functioning-government/385273271/
> • Appoint Supreme Court justices for staggered 18-year terms,





Devildoc said:


> One of my biggest issues with elected office is that it has become a profession, not a public service.  How can they possibly represent us if they haven't been us for 10, 20, 30 years??



Outside looking in, it looks like you need mandatory retirement to deal with the large amount of out of step fossils holding office.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

x SF med said:


> Because of the lack of interest "of the people, by the people and for the people..." just sayin.



I disagree.  In MD, it's all about "gettin' me and mines" so they electorate is very interested in all the free shit the get offered to just vote.  The democrat voters here are VERY interested and active (e.g. recent election in Baltimore had more votes than registered voters).


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> And how about maybe half the salary, so they have to hold down some real jobs concurrently...it's how they do it in most states....



They would be open to special interests "jobs".  The idea of high salaries was to trump that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> They would be open to special interests "jobs".  The idea of high salaries was to trump that.



But they are basically doing that now anyway. It's kinda of silly to pay them a high salary, plus all the benefits and they are still sitting on corporate boards or acting as a advisors with guaranteed jobs after they leave office. How many people showed up middle class and left a millionaire?


----------



## x SF med (Jul 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> I disagree.  In MD, it's all about "gettin' me and mines" so they electorate is very interested in all the free shit the get offered to just vote.  The democrat voters here are VERY interested and active (e.g. recent election in Baltimore had more votes than registered voters).



Lindy, that's not involvement in the governing and policing of the country and community, that's laziness and greed.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> But they are basically doing that now anyway. It's kinda of silly to pay them a high salary, plus all the benefits and they are still sitting on corporate boards or acting as a advisors with guaranteed jobs after they leave office. How many people showed up middle class and left a millionaire?



Post-USG employment is totally different.  Any knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired from USG employment is like having a non-civilian MOS in the military. 

Are you advocating that former USMIL be barred from security contracts or running their own security companies?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> Post-USG employment is totally different.  Any knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired from USG employment is like having a non-civilian MOS in the military.
> 
> Are you advocating that former USMIL be barred from security contracts or running their own security companies?



No. But I think there is a difference between having a skill set desired by the private sector vs passing laws that benefit a business for a big paying job after you leave office. Similar to high ranking officers influencing equipment fielding, retiring to work "as an advisor" for the same company that benefited.  I'm not saying that is always the case, but I think it's a bit unethical and contributes to the corruption that is becoming overly rampant.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> No. But I think there is a difference between having a skill set desired by the private sector vs passing laws that benefit a business for a big paying job after you leave office. Similar to high ranking officers influencing equipment fielding, retiring to work "as an advisor" for the same company that benefited.  I'm not saying that is always the case, but I think it's a bit unethical and contributes to the corruption that is becoming overly rampant.



Just like this doooooossssshhhhhh.

Keith Alexander's Unethical Get-Rich-Quick Plan


----------



## moobob (Jul 5, 2016)

The 16th amendment was one of the worst things to ever happen to this country. The 17th pretty much blows too...


----------



## Dienekes (Jul 5, 2016)

I wonder why some believe that an "efficient" government is necessary for a functioning country. By efficient, I mean the controlling party's ability to pass its agenda without obstruction. Many people compare the US system to the British Parliamentary system so let's look at the British Parliament. It is extremely efficient in that it can certainly pass its agenda with basically no problem. Assuming an outright majority, anything the controlling party want to pass, it can pass without even glancing in the opposition's direction As the Prime Minister(executive) basically has the say in what happens legislatively. 

Our Founding Fathers specifically setup a government that prevented that sort of "efficiency" because  a government that can pass its agenda without obstruction can easily usurp the rights of the people from whom it derives legitimate power. A government doesn't need to continuously legislate every minute detail for a nation to function. Why not let the harmony of self-interested actors play out for a while like Adam Smith suggests, and create policies that address the problems that arise out of that instead of letting people proactively legislate what they consider progress without considering the third and fourth order effects. The only problem with our government is that our inefficiency has an affect on our operating budgets and national debt. Address those issues instead of kicking the can down the road and let the people run their country instead of trying to legislate every aspect of social interaction. 

The only thing I do agree with is forcing the Senate to hold a hearing on a candidate within a certain time period. Precedence has been set in the past that the refusal of the Senate to hold a hearing constitutes a "no" verdict which really only amounts to BS partisan politics and leaves the nation's highest court at the possibility of leaving a serious matter at a split decision. If anything, I would advocate expanding the role of the court to reign in the Executive Branch. I'm looking at you EPA.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 6, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Now, get back in front of your TV and do what they tell you.



It's a viewscreen, the Thought Police and Ministry of Love use it to watch us, Mr. Smith....

Next thing, you'll go all Harrison Bergeron and bust off the chains, mask and lead boots.

(for you younger and or unread members, use the googleinternetsmachinethingy and see if you can find the referenced works, read them, they are scathing indictments of what is currently happening, and were written long enough ago to be truly scary.)


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 6, 2016)

x SF med said:


> It's a viewscreen, the Thought Police and Ministry of Love use it to watch us, Mr. Smith....
> 
> Next thing, you'll go all Harrison Bergeron and bust off the chains, mask and lead boots.
> 
> (for you younger and or unread members, use the googleinternetsmachinethingy and see if you can find the referenced works, read them, they are scathing indictments of what is currently happening, and were written long enough ago to be truly scary.)



Scathing indictment or how-to manual?


----------



## x SF med (Jul 6, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Scathing indictment or how-to manual?



same-same, horosho, my droog-ette?

(damn, I'm on a classic dystopian literature kick this week....  I'll keep the Ghormengast Trilogy out of it though.)


----------

