Cross-posted @ My Left Wing
So, let’s balance it.
And, no, I’m not talking about balancing the budget or the blatant absence of backbone in the skeletal frames of those we choose to represent us.
The title refers to the U.S. Constitution in its present state of degradation, and what we the people can do to make it work better for us.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
In other words, the purpose of our government is to enable the people of these United States of America to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.
Benjamin Franklin wrote:
"In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." The ultimate powers in a society, therefore, rest in the people themselves, and they should exercise those powers, either directly or through representatives, in every way they are competent and that is practicable.
Well, I think it’s safe to assume that both of these fine Founding Fathers of ours have been rolling over in their graves for the past six-years. I also think it’s safe to assume that to them, the very visage of President George W. Bush prompts haunting images of British tyrants -- three of which, are oddly also named "George" -- whose deranged, oppressive behavior provided the impetus for their original escape from England to the new world.
But, we’re kinda in an opposite situation these days in America, which creates an intriguing if not vexing dichotomy; a firm institution of democracy coming before the threat of tyranny instead of the other way around. But is our precious U.S. Constitution and its people protect'n protégé, the Bill of Rights, still equipped to take on a rapidly escalating threat of authoritarianism?
Concerned about the nation’s growing fiscal liabilities, legislators back in the 1970s introduced measures in many states to hold a constitutional convention to craft and pass an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget.
The drive to enact a balanced budget amendment was a defining issue of American politics in the final decade of the twentieth century as well. Supporters of this measure deemed it the only way to break the cycle of huge deficits that inflated the national debt to almost unmanageable proportions in recent years. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 only the Senate's narrow failure to deliver the requisite two-thirds majority – latterly by a single vote – prevented Congress proposing an amendment for ratification by the states.
Nevertheless the balanced-budget amendment campaign is not a product of the deficit-conscious 1990s. It originated in the 1970s as a movement by the states to impose fiscal discipline on the federal government.
Between 1975 and 1979 thirty states petitioned Congress for a convention to write a balanced-budget amendment. The convention method of constitutional reform had lain unused since the Founding Fathers devised it as an alternative to congressional initiative, but the support of only four more states would have provided the two-thirds majority needed for its implementation.
The states' campaign stalled at this juncture in the face of opposition from the Carter administration and congressional Democrats. By then, however, it had done much to popularize the balanced-budget amendment and make it part of the nation's political agenda.
Of course, change is sometimes a difficult concept to deal with for some people. At the time, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was one such person, which is mildly ironic considering the sweeping changes he had proposed for the people’s house with his “Contract with America.”
Instead of holding the convention, he had suggested that Congress tackle the balanced budget issue by simply passing a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget. It seems Speaker Gingrich wasn’t prepared for too much change. After all, a constitutional convention called by the actual “people” could be hazardous to the tenure of a deeply entrenched D.C establishment, and potentially involve much more than a simple balanced budget.
A “balanced budget amendment” did pass the House of Representatives in January 1995 but fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate. The primary sponsor of the bill, then Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole of Kansas reversed his vote in the final moments when it became evident the resolution wouldn’t pass. This allowed Senator Dole the option of reintroducing the amendment in the future, per standard Senate procedures.
As of now, thirty-two states have so far agreed to a resolution under Article V of the Constitution, calling for a new convention, but an agreement involving a full two-thirds of the fifty-states are needed for the resolution to pass. Complicating matters, three-states have since rescinded the resolution but the validity of such dissolution has never been settled, and is a matter that will someday be sorted out in the courts.
But state legislatures in both Ohio and Wisconsin have pending measures this year and that would add those states seeking a convention. If they pass, and if the convention inevitably becomes a reality, big changes to the U.S. Constitution -- and the United States of America -- become a very real possibility.
It seems George Washington agrees:
"The warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has do not contend that it is free from imperfections," George Washington wrote his nephew only two months after the conclusion of the Philadelphia convention. `'I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
So, do such statements imply that our Constitution should be changed in substantial ways to reflect the times? Are Article V constitutional conventions necessary every so often to use as a tonic for abuses suffered by the Constitution during periods of excessive power grabs by a fear-mongering executive branch? I would say yes. But could they cure the grave ills of our poisoned political system? I would say this is also possible. A new constitutional convention could put the issue of publicly-funded elections at the forefront.
Some analysts point to the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process; others focus on partisan gerrymandering, which in effect allows representatives to choose their voters rather than the other way around. Nor can one ignore the malicious secretiveness of the Bush administration, which has made decisions of literally life-and-death importance without deigning to consult neither American citizens nor their duly elected representatives in Congress.
So many issues; not the least of which is the restoration of habeas corpus and other judicial rights to not only Americans but anyone else in the world caught up in our judicial system – yes, even those the Bush administration proclaim as “terrorists” and “enemy combatants,” which are really nothing other than code words for “something less than human.” How long will it be before this dangerous marginalization of human rights applies to Americans who lawfully protest and exercise free speech and other forms of government dissent – a long held tradition in democratic countries all over the world – and for which we’re supposed to be fighting “over there.”
Vice [President] Al Gore weighed in on this aspect: Transcript: Washington Post (from remarks on constitutional issues -- January 16, 2006)
“As you know, the president has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that notwithstanding his American citizenship that person in prison has no right to talk with a lawyer, even if he wants to argue that the president or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person.
The president claims that he can imprison that American citizen -- any American citizen he chooses -- indefinitely, for the rest of his life, without even an arrest warrant, without notifying them of what charges have been filed against them, without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned.
No such right exists in the America that you and I know and love. It is foreign to our Constitution.”
(APPLAUSE)
“It must be rejected.”
What if our Constitution contained a provision whereby every 20 years the electorate could vote for a new constitutional convention that could assess the Constitution and recommend changes?
Changes that could address other concerns as well: (from “Get Me Rewrite!” courtesy of the Boston Globe)
• Do you support giving Wyoming the same number of Senate votes as California, which has roughly 70 times the population?
• Are you comfortable with an Electoral College that, among other things, has regularly placed in the White House candidates who did not get a majority of the popular vote? In 2000, George W. Bush didn't even finish in first place.
• Is the country unequivocally benefited by a system whereby a president can frustrate the will of a majority of both houses of Congress by vetoing legislation with which he disagrees on political grounds? Recall that over our 220-year history, the Supreme Court has invalidated approximately 165 federal laws, most of them of relatively little importance. US presidents, on the other hand, have vetoed 2,501 laws, many of them of great import.
• Is it desirable that the Constitution, which allows the impeachment of a president who commits `'high crimes and misdemeanors," provides no language or process suitable for ridding ourselves of a president whose ineptness is recognized by a substantial majority of the population?
• Does it make sense that a repudiated president--that is, an incumbent defeated in a national election--maintains the presidency for a full 10 weeks beyond Election Day, fully capable of making policy decisions that may drastically affect the future of the United States? In Great Britain, a new prime minister replaces a defeated incumbent the very next day.
• Do you really want justices on the Supreme Court to serve up to four decades and, among other things, to be able to time their resignations to mesh with their own political preferences as to their successors? Almost no other country has genuine `'life tenure." Most countries have either mandated retirement or specific terms, ranging from nine to 15 years.
• Do you support the ability of 13 legislative houses in as many states to block constitutional amendments desired by the overwhelming majority of Americans as well as, possibly, 86 out of the 99 legislative chambers in the American states? (There are only 99 because Nebraska, very sensibly, given its size, has opted for a unicameral Legislature.) Political scientist Donald Lutz has determined that the United States has the most difficult-to-amend constitution in the world.
Food for thought indeed.
Back to the Globe article:
It may be that the greatest difference between Washington's generation and ours, ironically, is that most of the Founders--Hamilton was a noted exception--believed that `'We the people" had the capacity to reflect on constitutional issues. Today, most people--especially, I fear, those who label themselves `'progressive"--seem almost terrified of their fellow citizens.
It would be foolish to discount fears of populist politics. But it also spells the death of any kind of democratic faith if we are unwilling, out of fear, to engage one another in serious conversation about our common future and whether the current Constitution is a help or hindrance in achieving our national goals.
In my humble opinion -- much like the tenuous time after Richard Nixon’s frontal assault on the Constitution – we find ourselves on the verge, and in dire need of changes. We need to strengthen the voice of “WE the people” in order to influence our elected representatives, as well as redefine the parameters of executive branch powers.
For far too long we’ve simply tolerated the status quo in Washington D.C. Once again I defer to Vice [President] Al Gore:
“We need a national conversation in America.”
I would simply add that we’re paying a huge price for our failure to do so.
Some additional links:
History of the U.S. Constitution
The Second Constitutional Convention
Constitutional Rights Foundation
Peace
__________________________
