Can We Turn DU Into A Committee of the Whole For a Constitutional Update?

[Demeter]

There's a lot of groundwork that's going to need to be done to bring the Constitution into the 21st Century.

So many of the physical barriers that plagued the Founders have disappeared: time, distance, record-keeping, big-state/little-state rivalries, or have altered so much that certain peculiarities are not only outdated and unnecessary, but they are also subject to abuse.

One good example of this is the whole Recess Appointment issue.

In these modern times, there is no earthly reason why there should be any such provision. No longer must Representatives travel a month to reach Washington. With teleconferencing, they don't have to travel at all; just provide a secure connection and appropriate verifications.

Another example is the Electoral College. In a nation so prone to be moving, there are no long-standing loyalties to place. Popular voting, with proper balloting security, eliminates this kluge as well.

The entire voting process must be added to the Constitution: evidently our Founders were far too honest to imagine some of the chicanery that Rove and Company have developed. A Universal Voting registration list, standardized federal ballots, and no piggy-backing local elections on top of national will be a good start-separate ballots at a minimum, separate voting days if that makes more sense. A Voting Day legal holiday, 24 hours from Friday noon to Saturday noon should protect all religious requirements, all work requirements, etc., if voting in person is kept as the law of the land. However, I think Voting by Mail should be seriously considered. Oregon has a lot of practical experience with this experiment.

The Founders had their Federalist Papers: We can start the process with the DU Papers, hammering out a refined, modern, and inherently more democratic model of how to run a country. I welcome your additions; as well as request a forum or some similar method of organization.

[Selatius]

1. I would fear that small states would resist abolishing the Electoral College. It gives them power.

If you weighted each state according to population and then compared that to the weight given each state in the Electoral College, I think you will find small states have been given more weight in the College than is justified by population relative to large states. By transitioning to the popular vote, you eliminate the advantage given to smaller states, and I would believe these smaller states would essentially veto any constitutional amendment attempting to abolish the College.

In another area of discussion that merits exploration, I think it's time to contemplate a constitutional amendment mandating all federal elections completely taxpayer funded and that any donations from individuals and groups and other entities to candidates in federal campaigns should be outlawed as bribery.

I also feel it's time to start a discussion on breaking the two-party monopoly on power and transitioning to some system that easily allows for more than two parties to become viable.

[Demeter]

2. That's Not Going To Work, This Time

And it's not going to be the amendment process--it's going to be 1789 again: A Constitutional Convention to codify the technological and evolutionary progress of this nation. We have to chop the ground out from under the Federalist Society, with their twisted notions of what was said and meant 200+ years ago; we're going to have to make a freedom from religious influence clause that is absolute. We are going to have to put limits on the Supreme Court and all courts as to which matters they have no jurisdiction over: no more playing doctor, or Solomon, or throwing elections. We are going to have to define limits on legislatures as to what things they cannot do: again, playing doctor, rewriting the rules every 5 minutes, and other cute little backstabbing ploys. And the whole issue of declaring war will have to go. We can declare that we have been attacked, but never again a war of aggression. That was the whole point of the treaties, but I guess the GOP slept through that class.

[rwenos]

3. Can of Worms

Calling a new Constitutional Convention is too damned dangerous. You're right that fundamental re-thinking needs to take place, and technological advances have changed the world. And the Electoral College . . . I was one of those Gore voters in California, 650,000 of us, who were outvoted in 2000 by 15,000 votes in Tennessee, Florida and New Hampshire. Hard to argue with THAT one.

The problem is the Right has been wanting a Constitutional Convention for years. They want (and would probably get) a new Constitution with no Fourth Amendment, no Fifth Amendment, no First Amendment free speech (freedom of religion MIGHT survive), and a dramatically-limited Commerce Clause. They'd repeal the Civil War Amendments (13, 14 and 15) like a shot. The Bill of Rights would be eviscerated. They'd probably try to do away with life appointments for federal judges, for God's sake. And just think of the effort they'd put into a Right to Life article.

No convention. Better to fight out the issues in Congress.

[Selatius]

4. Many people, including many DUers, are afraid of a new Constitutional Convention

They argue if one were to be launched, then the process could grow out of control. They cite 1789 as an example. Originally, it was to amend certain portions of the Articles of Confederation, yet in the end, it was essentially junked in favor of a new constitution altogether. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? That's subjective.

At any rate, I would be mildy optimistic about any new constitutional convention but would remain guarded on the idea of big business attempting to send its handmaidens to crash the party or religious fundamentalists using it as an opportunity to try to remove the separation barrier between the church and the state.

[rwenos]

5. "Could Go Out of Control?"

I'd say it inevitably WOULD get out of control. The corporatists would see this as their big chance -- get rid of the corporate income tax, write stuff into the new Constitution that would protect capital on a par with individuals. They'd pull out all the stops. As would the anti-Choice crowd. These people are ZEALOTS.

Better the evil we know than the one we could only guess at.

[Selatius]

6. To be sure, they would try, but you seem to be arguing as if they would do so unopposed like...

the only persons at the Convention would be right wingers and corporatists with no opposition from unionists, socialists, Greens, social democrats, progressives in general, etc.

[rwenos]

7. We'd Be There, Sure, But . . .

A Constitutional Convention would inherently have a pro-States' Rights flavor (having been called for by the state legislatures), and I think the Pubs and RW'ers are better than we are at organizing, and especially at manipulating the press to make X look like Y.

They're fierce propagandists. They'd have their moment.

[Selatius]

8. That depends on how the ground rules are laid.

A two-thirds or a three-fourths majority could be mandated for any change to the Constitution to be passed. The number of delegates each state could send could be limited to the number of seats in the US House they possess. California would send 53. Mississippi would send four.

[Igel]

9. The rage these days is for positive rights.

I consider positive rights to be corrosive to civil liberty; every new positive human right vitiates, to some extent, an older 'negative' human right.

However, I'm rather fond of negative rights. They impose a burden on government per se, not on the people.

[Demeter]

10. My Point Is: BE PREPARED!

Start working on this, get a good idea what we want to do, and then start selling it positively, so that Fundies are playing catchup.

Also, if head counts were scrupulously observed, the Fundies would be outvoted every time.

WE MUST BE READY! We are the think tank, in the absence of any other. Start thinking positively!