Time for a Constitutional Convention

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 13:00


It is hard to know how to react when, in the midst of a massive financial institution engineered crisis, our political system remains only responsive to large corporations.

  • The Federal Reserve can bailout Wall Street to the tune of over $2 trillion without any public input or oversight,
  • When the Supreme Court has granted corporations unlimited spending power during elections,
  • When the Senate requires a 60 vote supermajority to pass anything,
  • When corporate lobbyists are functioning as a large percentage of Congressional staff,
On days like these, it sure feels like our governmental system has become largely de-moored from the democratic process.  And days like these are becoming more frequent.

The appropriate step right now might very well be for a Constitutional Convention, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

We are living in a time when quite a few people, across the political spectrum, would be interested in such a convention.  There is a potential for a real trans-partisan coalition on this one, even if people will disagree on the specific proposals to be made at the convention.  Further, even the building threat of what might come out of such a convention could be enough to pressure Congress into real action.

Ever since Lieberman's backstab on the Medicare buy-in back in mid-December, I have been pretty depressed and cynical.  Basically, it is because my theory of change collapsed.  We got 60 people elected to the Senate, whipped and got 60 Senators on board with a public option tied to Medicare (actually, it was Medicare), and the whole thing collapsed anyway because of lies and corporate influence.

So, I am starting to think that maybe the system itself is the problem, and we need to fix that before there can be fixes through the electoral and legislation process.

Who is up for a Constitutional Convention?  What amendments would you like to see come out of one?

Chris Bowers :: Time for a Constitutional Convention

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Time for a Constitutional Convention | 98 comments
Repeal corporate personhood. (4.00 / 3)
Which was based on a forgery anyway, but since SCOTUS is going along with the joke, do this and get the money rot out of politics.

Start with that and everything else will follow.

"Corporate personhood" is a myth, (0.00 / 0)
created by opponents of speech. That 19th Century ruling only made contracts with corporations binding. Today's ruling does not depend on 'corporate personhood," rather it says free speech does not depend on personhood.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.
[ Parent ]
two suggestions (4.00 / 1)
1. Corporations are not human beings, are not citizens, have no natural rights and are only entitled to those rights specifically granted by the government.

2. Money is not speech.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
today, the same forces would dominate it too (4.00 / 4)
rewriting the Constitution today would probably leave us worse off.  the same forces that dominate the present American polity would simply seize the opportunity to engineer a system even more responsive to their desires.

you know, Daniel Lazare has argued for a Constitutional rewrite for some time.  after reading him years ago, i'd wanted another Convention myself.  but now it seems plain that the problems are the relative power of the forces behind the change in America; not the means of change.

organize the American left into powerful networks of whom politicians are as afraid of crossing as they are of moneyed interests.  close the Rootsgap.  then taking advantage of powerful means of change, such as rewriting our regressive rules of parliamentary procedure and possibly the Constitution itself, would be possible for us.

Indeed, this can seriously backfire. (4.00 / 1)
Gaucho is right, there's a enormous risk in this!
[ Parent ]
That's why we have a People's Convention (4.00 / 1)
that excludes the bad guys and crafts a constitution that would appeal to the vast majority of the people, left, right, or center.
[ Parent ]
"People's Convention", my ass. (0.00 / 0)
Come on, this wouldn't be a convention of 200 million people! And even if it was, judging from the ballot initiatives, we know what would come out of it. Just the kind of crap advocated by the guys who put the most money into their media campaign!

No, there will be delegates. And how to ensure if they are trustworthy? Any participants willing to sell out will be able to make millions in no time!

[ Parent ]
you're almost right (4.00 / 4)
but now it seems plain that the problems are the relative power of the forces behind the change in America

The problem which Chris highlights, though, is that the system is rigged so that the power of progressivism is thwarted.  I believe the balance of forces is more accurately reflected in Obama's election (however fraudulently he may have represented himself) and the Democrats achieving a solid majority.  What has happened is that this cannot be reflected in actual results.

The fight has to be had, because we are otherwise headed off the cliff.  The economy is poised for a second dip, Peak Oil, decaying empire, global warming.  There is no safe course.  We fight and risk losing, or we just lose.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
preconditions (4.00 / 2)
nobody contests that the system is rigged.  but:

restoring progressive power won't happen by fixing the system.  restoring progressive power is the precondition for fixing the system.

if the progressive movement is not yet powerful enough to pass a watered-down health bill over the objections of established interests, the solution is to increase its strength, organizational intelligence, popular sympathy, and network effects.  this is obviously to be a long-term and generational struggle.

the solution is not to fixate on a pony, i.e., an ideal restructuring of government that would be magically immune to the same forces that already make more modest change so difficult.

we can have our Convention.  in thirty years, when we've built our juggernaut.

[ Parent ]
we can do more than one thing at once (4.00 / 1)
... dialectical interplay and all that.

It's not simply the "objections of established interests," it's that the system allowed those objections to over-rule mass support.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
I'm up for it (0.00 / 0)
I'd be happy if just a single amendment came out of it that eliminated the 60 vote majority requirement in the Senate. The Senate is already the second most concentrated center of power in America. That power there may be further concentrated so that a minority of 41 members may, in effect, dictate legislation that affects 320 million American citizens should be unconstitutional.

The amendment would need to say little more than that acts of Congress require only a simple majority pass.

We don't need a convention for that (0.00 / 0)
Senate rules are amendable by less, it's a matter of will.

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This could be the deal-breaker, but I'm sure there's a way around it if we had the will.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
There's also... (4.00 / 1)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State .... and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The filibuster gives 41 Senators 1.21951 votes, not just one.  

[ Parent ]
"whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary" (0.00 / 0)
Hmm, big chance, or really?
However, if really such a supermajority would initiate a Constitutional Convention, just imagine the horrible infight between all the grandstanding loudmouths who would be appointed to it by their parties! Would they ever agree on anything? Even if you give your fancy full scope, this is far out...
Wow... (0.00 / 0)
I basically just suggested this in a comment last night. =)

Great minds think alike, etc...

Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
...that's a good faith approach to see it! However, who cares where a good idea comes from, as long as it gains traction.
[ Parent ]
Ability for the people to propose amendments (4.00 / 1)
I'd like for the people to be able to propose amendments...   Maybe 30% of registered voters signatures on a petition in 50% of the states to get it on the Ballot.      

I agree with Susie on the Corporate personhood.

Ban on soft donations.

OH... (0.00 / 0)
And a ban on lobbyists.
[ Parent ]
Yes. (4.00 / 2)
1) Proportional representation in the Senate: No more Senators for States.

Each party submits a ordered list of candidates. People vote for parties. Parties seat in the Senate the top X candidates based upon the % of the vote they get.

e.g. if the Progressive party gets 20% of the vote, they get 20 seats for their top 20 candidates.

Elect the Senate every 2 years.

2) Big increase in the number of seats in the House, 10 thousand is a good round number, about 1 per 30,000 people. A reasonable approximation of the "village elder", or town council direct democracy.

3) Direct election of the President by popular vote, this dovetails with #1, where we have a national election (what a concept!) along with 50 state elections.

4) Referendum power to the people.

5) An anti-dynasty clause: no descendants of a Constitutional Officer can be a Constitutional Officer until the 5th generation (great great grandson, grand daughter).

6) Patents and copyrights shall not exceed 20 years, fees to sustain patents and copyrights shall double every year starting with 1$ per year.

Partially because of circumstances, partially because of ideology, partially because of incompetence, Jim Madison fucked up. He was supposed to multiply faction, instead we have a Constitution that promotes periodic geographical Civil War, and 1.5 party rule.

Thanks a lot Jim.

Party list systems can be a mess (0.00 / 0)
See Italy, 1945-1995, The French Fourth Republic, Weimar Germany, etc.  

At the minimum, functional list systems have a relatively high threshold, say 5-10% of the vote required to get your first seat in Parliament.  

[ Parent ]
We already have a mess. (0.00 / 0)


Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Yes, I agree, but (0.00 / 0)
replacing what we have with systems that, historically, have been even more chronically ineffective than 20th century America is probably not a good idea, no?
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Their systems are ineffective because they have lost their empires and their countries are ineffective.  Although they have a better standard of living than we do.

And jeez, perhaps we could even improve on them.  The status quo is untenable.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Every one of those countries scrapped their party list (0.00 / 0)
systems in one way or another.  Because pure party list systems suck.  They cripple the central government with large numbers of minor parties that get one or two seats in Parliament.  

There are ways to fix a party list system so that it is functional.  The thresshold is one.  A postwar West German/German system that combines a list system with direct election of individual legislators is another.  

But pure party list systems are uniformly less effective than the postwar American system has been at producing legislation and governing.  

[ Parent ]
I'd call that a feature, not a bug. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You have to copy a success, not a failure, of course. (4.00 / 1)
Don't look at Italy or Israel! There are lots of positive examples, systems working reasonably well, without horrible deadlocks, constantly changing majorities, and lawmakers who sell out. Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain etc etc - all known for stable parliamentary systems that provide good results. Nothing to be afraid of.
[ Parent ]
Most of those countries (0.00 / 0)
Dont' have pure list systems.  They have high thresholds (Spain, Germany), strong Presidencies (France), or have a proportion of their Parliment directly elected (Germany).  

Pure list PR is historically the worst way to elect legislators.  That doesn't mean that a Parliamentary system can't work.  It just means that you need to modify the notion of pure list PR.  

[ Parent ]
Amendment (0.00 / 0)
Spain apparently doesn't have a high threshhold--there are seated parties with 1% of the vote.  So I was wrong there.  
[ Parent ]
never worse than First Past the Post (0.00 / 0)
Stop smearing pure list systems with selective examples of bad governments that happened to be using the system. Currently, pure list PR is used by most progressive European democracies including all Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, etc.

I'm all for MMP (as in Germany and New Zealand), and some threshold (pure list system doesn't mean there is no threshold, though I can't think of any country with a threshold higher than 5%). But I don't think that the presence of relatively meaningless district constituencies and higher threshold in Germany makes it a better democracy than, say, Denmark, with pure list PR and the threshold of only 2%.  

[ Parent ]
"relatively meaningless district constituencies"?`Huh? (0.00 / 0)
What do you mean by this, Jeff? Our districts make much more sense than yours, and many represntatives are elected directly! And, actually, that's the only way for candidates that are unpopular in their party to bypass the list against the resistance of party leaders. Green party rebel Stroebele was elected directly, quite an upset! What do you see wrong with that?
[ Parent ]
I don't think 5% (in Germany) is a high theshold. (0.00 / 0)
You have to avoid the parliament becoming a hodgepodge of "bowling club" size aprties, lik in Israel. Knesset is too divided to be functional. Consequently, small parties have to be bribed with official posts, inflating the administration to a size that is beyond ridiculous.

So, a threshold is necessary. Germany's 5% clause worrks very well, but maybe 3% would b ok, too. 1%, on the other hand, is too few. Such a party would have only 5 Representatives in a House of 500! You can't really do legislative work with so few people.

However, you'e right, those aren't pure list systems.

[ Parent ]
10k seems like way too many... (4.00 / 1)
And anti-dynasty clause is not very democratic, frankly.  I'm slightly skeptical of referendums too, but obviously could have its advantages.
Otherwise some interesting suggestions. =)
[ Parent ]
#2 sounds great (0.00 / 0)
One seat per 30,000 people. Whatever the total number of representatives would come to, prohibit the House from fixing the number of seats in the House; as the population changes, so too would the total number of seats in the House.
[ Parent ]
My only concern would be (0.00 / 0)
that it would make house reps even more anonymous than they already are, and therefore, more prone to corruption and less open to accountability.

Also, if you have a problem with gerrymandering now, just wait till house districts in urban areas are 100 m on a square.  

[ Parent ]
Q) Representatives don't have to work in Washington DC, right? (0.00 / 0)
Or any other distant capital city or specific physical place.

This is 2010 not 1780. Citizens have mass and instantaneous communication with each other. We could re-think how decisions are made.

Maybe parameters could be agreed to that would allow all citizens to determine or at least have more direct voice in certain areas of governance.  

[ Parent ]
The Senate can only be changed if states are unanimous (0.00 / 0)
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure if I'd go this far (0.00 / 0)
You'll open up a big can of worms if you were ever to get a Constitutional Convention and considering that we're worried about the growth of corporate interference in politics, why would anyone think a Convention would be any different?  

The major problem is the growth of corporate power.  Therefore we need a strong legal movement that seeks to end the dominance of Corporate America in modern American society.  It starts with a progressive movement that refuses to employ corporate lackey's and stops making excuses for supposedly liberal corporate entities like Jet Blue or Whole Foods.  Any business entity that really stands with the left is probably going to be a non-profit anyway.  And we need to make sure that progressive politicians stop utilizing corporate shills.  

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

There is no damn way a new constitution would (4.00 / 2)
have a first amendment, or anything like it.  That makes me really leery of that idea.  The Fourteenth would probably also be toast.  

I would enjoy being able to nuke the senate and the electoral college, but that is a damn high price to pay.  

Of course there'd be a first amendment (4.00 / 1)
I don't know what makes you say that.  I'm aware that polls often show people are against this or that example of free expression.  But everyone is for it in general (or at least afraid to admit opposition publicly).  In all seriousness.
[ Parent ]
There is not a supermajority that supports seperation of church and state (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I'm game! (0.00 / 0)
the system is stacked!

My blog  
We should get to write the rules. (0.00 / 0)
Something that's bothered me lately: Why should our legislative bodies get to write their own rules for debate? Shouldn't we get a say in the matter?

If we're never going to get rid of the two-Senators-per-state aspect of the Senate, at least allow more populous states to elect additional "Quasi-Senators" to vote on rules at the start of each term. This should be doable through a Constitutional Convention, if not through other avenues.

a Constitutional Convention is playing with fire ... (4.00 / 2)
... and if you play with fire, you're gonna get burned.

Oh wait, what's that smell, the smoke, our scorched flesh!

So yeah, I like the idea.  

So, I am starting to think that maybe the system itself is the problem, and we need to fix that before there can be fixes through the electoral and legislation process.

It does raise a lot of issues.  As I'm sure others will point out, the right has called for these to outlaw abortion and flag-burning, and it would be a real fight to amend it in a progressive direction.  But it's a real fight just to maintain a deteriorating status quo in any event.

There has been some talk about a left-right coalition, and that is also a dangerous business, but given that part of what should be the Democratic base has been grabbed by the teabaggers because of the Beltway crowd ignoring that they have some real concerns, it is worth some exploration.  Separate rightly disaffected working people from the fascist/corporate leadership of the teabagger movement.

What the teabaggers raised, in their insane racist way, was the legitimacy of the system.  I think that is an issue, though not for their reasons.  It needs to be raised.

Finally, issues work on multiple levels.  Whether or not such a convention can be pulled off in our lifetimes, and what practically that would mean, is one level.  But issues can often be important at an agitational level as well.

As agitation, it's a way to cut through the Beltway's series of this-or-that choices that lead to our downfall even as we keep choosing the better this over the worse that. I think it's a great idea.

As one of Sirota's pieces pointed out, one of the issues in Massachusetts was that progressives have felt humiliated, more than the particulars of any single issue.  This could channel this sense of humiliation into rage, and hopefully we could channel that rage into effective action.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Do we need a senate at all? (0.00 / 0)
?  Also, we need instant runoff voting.  The electoral college is stupid, I think the conventions should challenge it.    Free air time to all political parties, on the public airwaves.  We also need to revolk corporate personhood.  We need committe reform so that the committees are chosen by election. rather than seniority, since it is very easy for covert interest groups to stack committees using traditional seniority.

My blog  
Unfortunately... (0.00 / 0)
Article V protects the Senate with this proviso to any amendment: "...Provided...that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

One of many reasons why an entirely new Constitution is needed, rather than amending the current structure.

Downthread I threw out some minimum demands I would make in this fantasy Article-V-Convention scenario. Given the lock on our political and economic system by the malefactors of great wealth, and their servants in government -- the Democratic and Republican Parties -- all those reforms would be "off the table," to use a phrase beloved of the former Chair of the "Congressional Progressive Caucus," Nancy Pelosi.  

[ Parent ]
What article V doesn't do, however (4.00 / 5)
is prohibit completely de-powering the Senate.  How about just doing something like only giving the Senate a veto over house bills, doing something like requiring 60 votes in the senate in order to override a house bill, but barring that, something the house passes goes directly to the President for approval.  

YOu can't change the composition of the Senate legally, but you can make it irrelevant.  

[ Parent ]
Oops, I should read other comments before posting! (0.00 / 0)
Good one, Valatan! And you were faster than me.
[ Parent ]
yes, yes (0.00 / 0)
just look at how the House of Lords was rendered obsolete in 1911! a good model to follow.  
[ Parent ]
This can be coped with. (0.00 / 0)
Simply remove all powers from the Senate and only leave them with the right to veto House bills with a two third majority. No problems anymore!
[ Parent ]
our government can no longer govern (0.00 / 0)
the convention would be as corrupt as government is now.
Come on. (2.00 / 2)
Grow up. I am sorry that you are having a bad political season. So am i. So are a lot of us. It sucks that we are where we are. But to allow an ugly pol from Conn. to destroy your faith and hope is not only a waste of valuable talent and leadership, but its terribly immature. Your apathy and subsequent action, or better yet, inaction is going to contribute in a big way to what Mike was talking about...the party will divide and the GOP will win. They left the country in shambles on purpose...they wanted our ability to govern to be hampered by war and recession...it was designed to be hard...and you are going to throw up hands and let them get away with it?

Obviously Chris is not throwing up his hands ... (0.00 / 0)
... and is actually suggesting a way forward.  At least he is learning and growing from his experience.  The party is already divided.  It's just that the progressive side is  muzzled and handcuffed.  This could change that.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
Chris is sitting on his hands. On purpose. He is headed out into the wilderness when what we need is leadership. I have respected Chris' opinion for years and looked to him for vision, guidance and direction. But by intentionally ignoring the single most important issue facing his party at this moment in time--a party that is in desperate need of leaders--Chris's opinions will become meaningless. Its one thing to get burned out, its another thing to pretend like health insurance reform doesn't exist.
[ Parent ]
then your quibble is over healthcare (0.00 / 0)
You want him to keep trying to ram the Senate bill down the House's throat as-is.

At least we're clear.

By the way, you don't need leadership to get to the corner store.  You need leadership to go into the wilderness, and the wilderness is where we need to be.  The charted territory all leads to death.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
my quibble (0.00 / 0)
my quibble is over the direction Chris is taking with his blogging. its directionless.
[ Parent ]
glad to hear it (0.00 / 0)
Then you don't want him to keep trying to ram the Senate bill down the House's throat as-is.

Actually, it's not directionless, it's a change of direction.  There's a difference.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
I too demand that Chris lead me (0.00 / 0)
...and that he lead me where I tell him to lead me!

If Chris is supposed to be your leader, having some qualities of foresight and insight you supposedly admire, maybe you should take more time to wonder how he has come to propose such a momentous change of direction.


[ Parent ]
i read what he writes (0.00 / 0)
i think i understand where he is coming from
[ Parent ]
I'm with aiko on this. Maybe I'm too pessimistic... (4.00 / 1)
...but imho this Constituional Convention ideea is totally unrealistic and only a waste of time. Maybe an opportunity to vent, but nothing more. And in the meantime, the damn centists are out there and trying to move the country ven futher to the right. Shouldn't progressives react on this? Where is progressive leadership?

Really, I'd rather read a story from, say, Darcy about what can be done to use this crisis as a chance to advanc progressive policies. That would be good, and vastly preffeable to creating castles in the air!

[ Parent ]
You call it venting ... (4.00 / 2)
... I call it agitation.  Important points can be made.  The system is broken.  How do you address that central fact?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
I'm more the guy who thinks in patches and workarounds. (0.00 / 0)
New systems is a different department. Call 1-800 NUNATION.
[ Parent ]
I'm probably more pragmatic than most here (4.00 / 2)
in fact, been told to "fuck off" fairly often, but what Chris is proposing here IS action. It beats the FDL way of doing things which is throw elections to Republicans and pray Democrats move to the left. That hasn't worked yet and in 2000, had Gore actually won, wouldn't have worked at all.

The system needs a massive overhaul, until it does, I argue to work within it's boundaries, which is not preferable to those who want real progressive change.

Chris is suggesting fixing the system, this is the direction we need to go...all while pushing our agenda within the current system's boundaries.  

[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 1)
You and Chris can spend the next 50 years trying to pull this off. And more power to you if you are successful. Its not that its a bad idea per se. But I think there are more important and more pressing things to focus on.
[ Parent ]
I'm under no illusions (0.00 / 0)
that wouldn't take that long.

In the meantime, we work within the system to get what we can get.  

[ Parent ]
To quote myself (0.00 / 0)
issues work on multiple levels.  Whether or not such a convention can be pulled off in our lifetimes, and what practically that would mean, is one level.  But issues can often be important at an agitational level as well.

As agitation, it's a way to cut through the Beltway's series of this-or-that choices that lead to our downfall even as we keep choosing the better this over the worse that.

If we only fought for what we were sure we could win, we would never fight for anything.  The system's legitimacy is in question and he addresses that.

If you have a better way of agitating around that, please put it out.  I'm not here to quibble over technical details, when he is raising more fundamental issues.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Desperate times call for desperate measures (4.00 / 1)
I'm as "insider" a person as anyone.  I've always favored constitutional reform, but would never have worked for it because it seemed impossible.  It may still be, but may also be necessary.  With the filibuster, the system, which has always been stacked against change of any sort, may make the "hard" change this country now desperately needs to survive as an advanced democracy impossible.  There are in fact unusual times when normal methods have to be abandoned.  Might you in fact have told Sam Adams to "grow up" when he called for revolution, instead of normal political processes?
[ Parent ]
here's a tactic (4.00 / 2)
Say we'll call for a constitutional convention unless they kill the filibuster.  Even if a convention proves ultimately impossible, it can raise all hell at the state legislature in pushing for it.  It applies pressure.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Instead of repealing 1st Amendment, (4.00 / 3)
Legalize pie.

One well placed pastry is worth more than $1 million in crappy ads.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

Masel, tough! That's the hard hitting ideas we need! (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, give 'em enough pie, stuff their pieholes, and they will stfu! Pure genius.
:D
[ Parent ]
This is going to end (4.00 / 1)
in a violent revolution...I can tell.

No... (0.00 / 0)
....the rebel leaders will be identified by their IP numbers, and taken out and shot.
[ Parent ]
you know nothing ... (0.00 / 0)
about how revolutions happen.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
They tried that with Padraig Pierce (4.00 / 2)
and 6 years later the Irish had Home Rule.
[ Parent ]
Erm (0.00 / 0)
... something about six counties?

The poet and the Irish rebel a Gaelic scholar and a visionary
We gave to him no fitting tribute
When Ireland's at peace only that can be
When Ireland a nation, united and free.


[ Parent ]
amendments (4.00 / 3)
1. Rewrite all the language on taxes to legitimize primarily taxing wealth -- at steeply progressive rates -- rather than work.
2. Clarify that corporations ARE NOT PERSONS, for purposes of interpreting the Bill of Rights or any other part of the Constitution.
3. Clarify that MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL SPEECH, as in #2.
4. Clarify the war powers provisions, military spending, etc, severely limiting the current imperial-presidency powers.
5. Write an additional Article covering political campaigns -- time and spending limitations, public financing, use of public property (the electromagnetic spectrum), etc.
6. Rewrite Article II, explicitly prohibiting expansions of executive authority, encroachment on other branches' stated powers, or contradictions of the Bill of Rights (goodbye, police state).

For starters.

This would be modest and wise reform (0.00 / 0)
and a good start.

But an actual Constitutional Convention would be an opportunity to re-imagine our potential in a profound way.

The reality is that we are laboring within a system of government that for the most part was designed when there were maybe 3 million citizens, mass media was a printing press and the town crier, and the fastest mode of communication was horseback. It's like trying to navigate a rocket flight to the moon with a compass and sextant.

Are we sure we want to continue into this millennium with the model of a (putative) representative democracy with three (theoretically co-equal) branches?

There are a lot of smart people out there. I would love to have a discussion about potential systems of government that are less hierarchical, more egalitarian, better able to "provide for the general welfare" and deliver "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"  to the greatest number of citizens.    

[ Parent ]
I'm with the skeptics (4.00 / 1)
I don't think a convention is the way to go, but I do think that we should think more about possible Amendments:

My list:

1. Modify electoral college as follows:
   a. Mulitply each states' electors X10.
   b. Electors must be faithful.
   c. Electors are apportioned to each state purely based on population.

2.  Proportional representation in Senate.

3.  Direct election of Speaker of the House.

4.  Term limits for Committee chairpersons.

5.  Require all states to permit fusion voting, in order to support minor party power.

6. Some form of Instant Runoff or Condorcet voting.

Proportional Representation in the senate is not a valid amendment (0.00 / 0)
the clause on amendments specifically bans altering the 'equal representation of every state in the senate'
[ Parent ]
True, but... (0.00 / 0)
can the amendment clause itself be amended through normal procedures? There is nothing saying it can't be, so remove that line and then alter the senate.
[ Parent ]
Amendments to the Constitution can do anything. (0.00 / 0)
Including changing the makeup of the Senate.  Or abolishing it.

To see some of the changes that previous amendments have made, see here.  One of the bigger changes was with Amendment 12, which basically overwrote Article II, Sec 1, paragraph 3.

So I repeat, amendments can do anything.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
Proportional Representation of the Senate (0.00 / 0)
is pretty redundant, might as well just get rid of the whole body, or severely weaken it's power.

I agree with fusion voting. Here in New York, it's great...yo can pull the level for the Working Families Party, and the Democrats will follow what they want in order to get their nomination, less they have a third party challenger.

Same with Conservatives on the other side.  

[ Parent ]
Not Now (0.00 / 0)
Getting a bunch of people - selected how? - in a single room to debate (Read: yell at each other about) fundamental change to the governing structure of the US is a recipe for futility.

The Constitutional Convention was the result of over 40 years of learning, discussion, agitation, revolution, incompetent government, and economic collapse (or darn near.)  We don't have those objective circumstances and we don't have the broad support those circumstances generated.

 

5 out of 6 ain't bad. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
No it's not (0.00 / 0)
But all that was directed against a foreign occupying power in a climate of awakening nationalism with the support of a faction of the existing US Ruling Class: the southern planters and Boston merchants.

Now the appeal and social force of nationalism is being used against us and the Ruling Class is doing Just Fine, thank you very much.

Also we lack the means and mechanisms of "cat herding" popular discontent into some form of coherent political activity.

[ Parent ]
I'd like to codify explicitly: (0.00 / 0)
1) Judicial review (even though I think that Article 3 is pretty explicit as is, making the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of "all cases arising under this Constitution" - what else can that mean besides judicial review of legislation if "this Constitution" prohibits Congress from making certain laws, e.g., bills of attainder?).

2) Legislative oversight, and Congressional subpoena power, along with something like the "rule of seven" that allows seven members of Congress to demand information.

3) A rejection of sovereign immunity, the notion that a state cannot be sued in federal court without its consent.

4) A requirement that state and local governments cannot abrograte any rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Case law in the last century moved in this direction, but let's stop taking chances.

New reforms should include:

1) Direct election of the Attorney General

2) An elected, GAO-type watchdog officer within the Executive, a la New York City's Public Advocate, with explicit authority to be privy, in times of both war and peace, to any all information presented to the President.

3) A voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast in, at minimum, federal elections.

4) At least voluntary public financing of elections, and restrictions on campaign spending and contributions.

And much, much more....

Different thoughts on the same idea (0.00 / 0)
I've been struggling with the same issues as Chris, but have come to a different conclusion. Basically our political system / government as it is currently operating is non-responsive and largely non-functional. I too thought that there was a way around this through generation of a 60+ majority, but it is now clear that isn't the case. Chris' approach is to reform government. I appreciate the suggestion, but don't see any way for it to be accomplished. What we are fighting (generally) is non-responsiveness but any reform of government almost implicitly relies upon government reaction. Our government is set up to have a very high barrier to change because the founders believed that it would be abused by changing too fast or when it wasn't called for, but it entrenches stagnation. I simply don't believe that there is a political solution here. (Though I would LOVE to be proven wrong.)

My thinking is that as progressives we almost need to forget focusing on politics and instead focus primarily on culture. Yes we should still vote, and vote for Dems, and the most progressive of Dems, but I really am starting to believe that I can make more of a difference switching from Citibank to my local credit union or actively avoiding shopping at mom and pop stores (or whatever) and encouraging people to do the same. I don't think I'm wording it very well, but basically I think that as hard as it is, it is easier to change society/culture. Of course, I don't harbor any illusions on that front which is part of why I am so depressed about the whole situation.  

You can't solve global warming by shopping. (4.00 / 2)
That is just silly.  

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
If you convinced everyone to only buy energy derived from wind power or solar power? Or to only invest in "green" companies? (There was movement in the auto industry when people started demanding better gas mileage.)

I agree that it isn't gonna actually happen, but I think it is more likely than government changing. The fact of the matter is that I think you'd be more likely to achieve environmental goals by trying to change our culture rather than trying to change government so that they would force changes upon society.

But you are focusing on a specific rather than my general point.

< pun> YMMV < /pun>

[ Parent ]
most people can't afford to live on wind power (0.00 / 0)
or solar, so it does nothin!

My blog  
[ Parent ]
but... (0.00 / 0)
First off you said that you can't solve global warming by shopping... That is demonstrably false. It would take an awful lot of people acting exactly the way you wanted (which would be VERY unlikely) but it isn't impossible.

If you can't get 60 Senators to vote for one piece of bad health care reform legislation (or let's extend to cap and trade) then how do you expect to get 67 to vote to rewrite the Constitution?

I think that if you try to change government you have the ability to make drastic societal changes, the difficulty is that it is VERY hard to change government. If you try to change individuals it is easier, but you have to change an awful lot of them for society to change.

You can change society either by changing government and making a big change or by changing lots of individuals to make smaller changes. What you are saying is that the latter is not possible (or likely), what I am saying is that it seems to me that it is more likely than the former. (Which speaks more towards how unlikely the former is rather than how likely the latter is.)

But hey, I'd love to see a Constitutional Convention. I'd love to see more Reps, or an end to the filibuster, or less corporate money in politics... I just think that that is as impossible as you believe getting everyone to live on wind or solar is...

[ Parent ]
What your talking about is useful but insufficient (0.00 / 0)
Massive government action is needed to save us now.  You may be right that there is no political solution, but then we're toast, so we have to give it all we have.
[ Parent ]
Constitutional convention (0.00 / 0)
I have been waiting for you all to get to this realization for years.  Yes, the system is broken, and it is devouring EVERYTHING in the service of predatory capitalism.  Now, the last restraints are being discarded by the beast.

Not only must we change the structure of government to exclude money from the decisionmaking, we must make the pursuit of profits serve the needs of the people as a whole to the exclusion of the needs of the economic elite.  

The very philosophy of perpetual, unlimited economic growth will end up destroying humanity.  Sea levels have risen an inch and a half since Kyoto was signed.

Article V convention, disempowered senate, end of revolving door politics and corporate service, end of lobbying by $$, end of private contracting military services, end of private campaign funding.

In short, revolutionary change is all that will save this country now.

You realize you're essentially calling for a revolution Chris... (4.00 / 1)
The word is overwrought in America, but fundamentally, rewriting or extensively modifying the U.S. Constitution would require a popular movement, and probably wouldn't be all that different than historically recent (comparably) bloodless revolutions like South Africa, South Korea, the Baltic states, Czechoslovakia, or Indonesia.

Still, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this.  The legislative branch of the U.S. is effectively broken, through a combination of overuse of the filibuster and individual holds on appointments by senators.  Essentially all it can do now is approve budgets, pass incredibly non-controversial bills, and corporate giveaways of some sort or another.  

This is actually a problem for people across the political spectrum as well.  The legislative branch didn't even do much of anything in Bush's first six years.  His most lasting domestic legacies, (Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind) very bad public policy, but not really conservative per-se, and accomplished in his first three years in office.  The damage Bush dealt to the government was almost entirely through abuses of the Executive, not what he rammed through Congress.  

As to what I'd like changed, I think it's similar to many others.  I'm not going to bother distinguishing between what's now not policy due to the constitution, and what is merely custom.  Presumably a new constitution could fix all of that.  

1.  Abolish the Senate entirely.  If impossible, curtail their functions to be similar to other nation's upper house.  Eliminate the filibuster.  Transfer confirmation hearings to the house.  Make it so the Senate cannot create or vote down legislation, only revise it, and cannot touch anything regarding appropriations.  Vote by IRV.    

2.  Increase the number of congressmen to at least 500.  I'd prefer a larger House than that, but my understanding is that's the maximum we can cram in without building an new capitol building.  Vote by IRV.  

3.  Create a new, peoples house selected by lots (similar to jury duty).  Position would be lower-paid and only run for part of the year.  Could vote remotely on an as-needed basis in times of emergency, and should have thousands of members.  Needs to confirm all bills not dealing directly with spending.

4. Reduction in the power of the president by making the heads of cabinet-level agencies directly elected.  Election of these, and the president, is by IRV.  

5. Clearly establish the circuit courts, as well as the various administrative law courts now existing, in the new Constitution.  Judges serve ten-year terms.  

That's just off the top of my head.  There's a lot more policy I'd like to see changed, but I'm not sure we really need to enshrine policy in the U.S. Constitution.  

NO...FREAKING....WAY... (4.00 / 2)
Just the mention of "Constitutional Convention" brings back an evil flashback to The Reagan Years....  The (im)Moral Majority and other right wing chrstofascist organizations were calling for a Constitutional Convention to handle some relatively minor things (not abortion, but things like burning the flag).  Anybody with half a brain realized, though, that their real goal was to open up the Constitution to: making abortion unconstitutional; making the U.S. officially a Christian nation; changing the term limits for Presidents to Ronny Raygun could serve 6 terms, etc.

I'd rather live with depression than open that can of worms.

Unnecessary and dangerous (0.00 / 0)
The main problem we have in the Congress is too much money making representatives and senators beholden to special interests.  The first step for liberals and progressives really should be true and complete campaign finance reform.  Mandatory public financing.  Once you get that, I can't see how everything else doesn't start to fall into place.
But it would get filibustered! (4.00 / 2)
Next ...

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
The system is the problem. (4.00 / 1)
But not the Constitution.

The following parts of the system are the problem, in no particular order:

(1) corporate personhood
(2) tied to (1), corporate influence in elections
(3) the Senatorial filibuster veto

Disproportionate representation in the Senate can be a problem in theory, but is a minor one in practice.

(1) can be solved by getting it repealed through either the courts or Congress, (2) can be solved by effective public financing of elections (congressional as well as presidential), (3) can be solved by getting the Senate to change its rules. While none of these would be, ahem, easy, they would be easier and a lot less risky than a constitutional convention. (A constitutional convention would, for the record, run the risk not just of doing bad things, but of not actually solving the problem.)

Also, your theory of change didn't get discredited. You yourself were the one penning articles saying that 60 Democrats is not the relevant thing, back before we actually got 60 votes, were you not? You were right. 60 members in the Democratic caucus doesn't imply that every item on the Democratic agenda automatically gets to pass. You need 60 for every single individual bill. And for a public option, you didn't have it. You did have it for the rest of the healthcare bill, which, really, is not nothing.

Basically, what having 60 votes means is you have, effectively, 60 Ben Nelsons or Joe Liebermans. Right now, you have 60 Olympia Snowes (or maybe Scott Browns). If you had had 2 more votes, Medicare expansion would have passed. If you had had 4 more votes (Lincoln, Landrieu), a public option would have passed. And yeah, getting four five more Democrats on top of 60 59 would be really fucking hard. (Equivalently, you could replace worse Democrats with better ones, or make worse Democrats better). But it doesn't mean your theory of change is discredited.

Alternately, you could get rid of the Godsdamned filibuster, and then you would have 51, I don't know, Jon Testers? And then you could get a lot more done.

"A Social Republic" (0.00 / 0)
I think that's the wording used in the French constitution...although the best option might be to simply copy the German constitution wholesale. Created in the ashes of WW2, it survived the echos of nazism and 40 years of being on the front line in the Cold War, and was the foundation for a country that is now the economic engine of Europe and has a strong influence on EU policy. If that's not a success story, I don't know what is. And the great thing about it: we helped 'em write it!

But to answer your question, my proposed amendments, sir, are as follows:

Amendment A: Abolish the Senate

Amendment B: Abolish the Electoral College

Amendment C: Require that each Supreme Court Justice be re-confirmed by the full House six years after their prior confirmation

Amendment D: Nationalize the Fed

Amendment E: Mandate that all federal campaigns be publicly subsidized, with an appropriate level of funds set aside each year for state-level campaigns in states that choose to participate.

Amendment F: Mandate employee councils for all businesses  of greater than or equal to 25 employees [I think Germany and France have the bar set much lower, at greater than 10 or even greater than 4. The EU also has a requirement, for those countries that signed the Social Charter.].

Not only does this make government responsive to the people, and tame the influence of money, but with employee councils it empowers citizens without empowering government.

Business and government are like giant magnets: reduce the power to one, and the benefits (filings) don't accumulate to the average citizen, they quickly hoard around the other magnet. One reason why libertarians are so wrong in their constant attacks on government, is because even when they succeed, all they've done is changed oppressors.

Employee councils 1)bring previously "external" voices from the company workforce and local community into the framework for corporate decision-making, and 2) do so with minimal reliance on government. While government representatives sometimes have a role, the process itself is driven by the unions and corporate managerial teams. People don't have to rely exclusively on politicians and bureaucrats; employee councils give them very real power outside the political system...it's economic democracy, and it's worked in contintental Europe for over 50 years.

Time for a Constitutional Convention | 98 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox