James Madison, the primary father of the Constitution, did not believe that the work of the Framers should be permanent. Frequent constitutional revision would be “a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors,” he said.
Yet his view is a controversial one in the United States, where the Constitution is often treated as a sacrosanct or even holy document. After I wrote a 2007 book called “A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals To Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country,” I received an e-mail from a man named George, who said he was a Madison descendant from Virginia — and who wrote that he would take up arms, if necessary, to prevent any of my cockamamie ideas from ruining his ancestor’s Constitution.
I agree that the Constitution remains brilliant in its overall design and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But where George and I part ways — amicably, I hope — is in my belief that it contains archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change in a 21st-century world unimaginable to the Founders. Here are five suggestions, laid out in detail in my book, for updates:
Restore the War Powers Balance (Article II, Section 2)
The Framers split authority on war-making between the president (commander in chief) and the Congress (declaring war). Does anyone seriously believe that they would have approved of the executive branch waging years-long wars without the explicit approval of the legislature? Yet the advantages accruing to any president (the unitary nature of the office, the swift action that only he can take in a hair-trigger world, his dominance of the TV press conference) have created an emperor as much as a president. To restore constitutional balance, we need a War Powers Amendment:
The president shall have the freedom of action to commit American troops for up to six months. Immediately after that period, both houses of Congress, by affirmative vote and without unlimited debate, must vote to extend any war. If one or both houses decline to vote for an extension, all troops must be withdrawn within a year of the vote. Congress must continue to vote on whether to continue the war once each year for as long as the war lasts.
Create a More Representative Senate (Article 1, Section 3)
Just 18 percent of the American population elects a majority of the United States Senate. This is because, even though gargantuan California has about 66 times the population of tiny Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. In the beginning of the American Republic, the population differential between the large and small states — and thus the imbalance of power — was far less. Let’s build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each. The allocation will be updated with each new census, like so:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, along with two additional senators each from the 10 most populated states, and one additional senator each from the 15 next most populated states, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. The allocation of senators shall be determined by each decennial census.
Transform Presidential Elections (Article II.5 and Article II, Section 1)
Americans don’t have to be convinced that our presidential election system is broken, because they’ve seen it fall apart before their very eyes in elections past. On nominations, there is no constitutional guidance, because the document was written in the age before political parties came into being. As for the Electoral College, it is a product of the absence of broad-based democracy in the 1780s; only a handful could vote and a “stabilizing elite” controlled everything, including the election of a president. The nation needs a new Article II.5 that would set up a sensible system of rotating, regional primaries — with the nominating structure no longer subject to the selfish whims of a few states. Moreover, the Electoral College must be overhauled, with more-populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based Electoral College isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if a recount like the one in Florida in 2000 ever had to be conducted nationwide.
Presidential primaries: Presidential nominations shall be determined through a series of four regional primaries. A lottery shall be held on Jan. 1 of the election year to determine the order of the primaries, which will be held in the four months before the national party conventions.
Electoral College: States will be granted additional electors in Article II, Section 1, based on the above revisions to Article I, Section 3, granting larger states more senators.
Limited Supreme Court Terms (Article III)
Our judicial Mount Olympus needs a bit of downsizing. If the founders had foreseen the Supreme Court’s evolution — and the establishment of a tradition of decades-long judicial tenure — they might have limited court service in some way. The insularity of lifetime tenure encourages arrogance and overreach. Let’s replace it with this:
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour for a non-renewable term of 18 years, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Universal National Service (Amendment XXVIII)
For many reasons, shared sacrifice is less widely embraced today than it was when President John F. Kennedy memorably said in his 1960 inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” We could change this, with an amendment requiring all able-bodied young Americans to devote at least two years of their lives to the service of their nation. The charge must be broad, and the civilian and military options must be many, to accommodate the varied talents of the population and the diverse dictates of conscience. I offer Amendment XXVIII:
Between the ages of 18 to 26, every American who is able to shall perform two years of national service, civilian or military.
For most of my day, I focus on real politics, and I fully recognize that my proposed reforms will likely be enacted on the 12th of never. Still, we ignore the Constitution’s shortcomings at our peril. Circumstances that cannot now be predicted may eventually encourage the country to build a better constitutional mousetrap. In due course, we may take to heart the advice that Thomas Jefferson gave to his friend, Mr. Madison, in 1789: “No society can make a perpetual constitution … . The earth belongs always to the living generation.”
Larry Sabato is the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and University Professor of Politics.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Universal National Service amendment. I would add the caveat that if you choose not to perform the 2 years, that you not be allowed to vote.
God forbid that I not be allowed to play along in the big charade game, or “vote” as you call it.
Just because the current voting system has been corrupted does not mean that the institution should be ingnored. The institution needs to be fixed, and go back to representing the people. By your comment I presume you are one of the many who view the Republic as doomed to collapse, and it may be, but we have to hope there is a chance of recovery (while stocking up on food & munitions).
At one time, I was probably at where you are now. I do believe that the republic is doomed to collapse, and I do recognize that a republic is what was established by our founders. All governments are doomed to fail, including this one. I’ll be right up front in regard to where I’m coming from. For a good part of my life, I was a neocon, and then became a conservative more in the image of our founders, but now I consider myself to be a peaceful anarchist. I understand that some people can’t get their head around that one (not saying you can’t), but that’s what I am.
Also, if one declines service to his or her country, then the country should have the right to decline service to the one.
Wow, there is no word in the English language to convey how wrong that statement is.
It’s a suggestion. I suggest you consider that.
Sounds like China! Everyone there has to serve the government too. Oh, and they really don’t have a right to vote either. It seems they tried this is our country before. They called it the draft. Went over like a fart in church.
Actually it sounds more like Norway, Sweden, Israel, etc., all representative democracies that require their citizens to perform some sort of national service. Perhaps if we reintroduced the draft in the US, the populace would not be so eager to go to war.
I don’t believe that the government owns me or you.
A very interesting article. It’s nice to know that serious thought is still being given to the Foundation of our Nation.
I disagree with the notion of mandatory military service. I think it’s wrong to force people to potentially fight and die in a war. Maybe the thought is that it is a sort of payment for living in a free country, a notion I also disagree with. I don’t believe freedom is a privilege or favor granted to us by government, but rather our birthright as human beings.
I like the idea of broad national service. 2 required years, either civilian or military.
I just don’t think it’s right to force someone to potentially have to fight and die. Plus, if you think our military has a problem with thugs and gangbangers joining up now, wait until (if and when) this plan goes into effect.
Sir, if you believe so heartedly that the freedom to live as you like and want is not to be earned by defending it then I seriously suggest that you go and take a good long look at what happens when people are denied those option’s, and the responsibilites that go along with them, in places like Kosovo and the Sudan. They have hundred’s, if not thousand’s, of cemetary’s and mass graves that point out just how ‘free’ they are when they won’t take the responsibilites to stand up and fight for their basic liberties and right’s that they call for as their own. Right’s mean NOTHING UNLESS THEY ARE DEFENDED ! The right of anyone to live free requires that that freedom to live free of oppression, abuse and dictatorship to be defended and fought for if it is to applicable to anyone !. The prime example of that is the current Korea issue.
In 1945 both the U.S. and the Russian’s split the Korean Peninsula in 2, at the 38th Parallel, and left each half of said people’s to determine their own means of self-determiniation and governance. We all saw the result’s of that on June 25th, 1950 when the North Korean’s tried to overun the South in order to dominate and conquer the South and bring them under a Communist style of ‘Free and Democratic’ form of government. The UN, in a rare moment of sanity, said “Hell no ! ” and immediately sent UN, and US, combat troop’s to free the South from the North’s army’s (that was being aided not so subtley by both the Russian’s and the Chinese). When the UN finally freed the South, the North’s ideas of ‘freedom’ were seen in every city, town, village and hamlet in the Country, not to mention every roadside ditch looked into. To man, woman and child, anyone, of any age, that the North Korean’s believed had any education of any kind, or was seen as an educated person, was taken out, hands tied behind their back and shot in the head. Tyranny, and it’s father Dictatorship always succeed’s when ever the freedom so loudly called for is left to flounder on it’s own without being defended. The Korean War is proof of that beyond question. So is the recent Kosovo civil war. How many people, of all faith’s, have died simply because the Serb’s decided that their faith (and that is stretching the term and definition of ‘faith’ beyond imagination) required them to kill another so they could live free ? So much for the freedom to live free as one wants in Kosovo ! The right to live free also requires one to accept that fact that not everyone else see’s as you do and to let them live as they see fit, not just your own idea’s of what living free is. Kosovo is a tragic example of what happens when that basic principle is either ignored, abuse or left to fend for itself on it’s own with no support.
What the framer’s of our own Constitution saw as the need to recognize that the Country was not a 1 size fit’s all document and political philosophy. Rather they saw the need for the representation of all people here to accomidate the right’s, and the inherent responsibility’s that go wth those right’s, of everyone. Sabato may not be the most popular guy in DC right now but he has made the arguement. And I for one, as an Independent in Maine, am more than a little inclined to give his position the benefit of the doubt until someone can prove to me that he’s wrong, or has a better idea.
Last time I checked, our volunteer military was still perfectly adequate to defend our nation.
If you want to enjoy the benefit’s then you had better dammed well be prepared to share the risk’s and the responsibility’s. And if that means that you do your part by spending time in re-building a school somewhere in the Midwest or serving on a wildfire firefighting crew in Arizona, guess what ? Saddle up son and be prepared to shoulder, and actually understand, not just read about, what it means to take responsibility for your part of America. Kennedy said it in 1961 and it’s still applicable today. ‘It’s not what your Country can do for you. It’s what you can do for your Country’. Cinch’em up and show your responsibility instead of being a potted plant on the windowsill of life.
And yes, I did serve. For over 28 years and no, I never looked back. For those that know, and remember, “Follow Me !” ‘Nuff said. Now it’s your turn.
You’re absolutely right. Trouble with this country is, with the desire to be voluntarily enslaved to the government and the “it’s my right” mentality, far too many people stand around with their hands out, palms up, waiting for the government to give them a living. Of course, they’ll be the first to revolt when the teat dries up and they are expected to make it on their own. Just look at France and Greece.
It’s sad that “the land of the free and home of the brave” is slowly becoming the land of the freebies and the home of the knave.
The author specifically stated, “every American who is able to shall perform two years of national service, civilian or military.” The person would have a choice between serving in a civilian OR military role. If you have a problem with giving two years of your life to assist or defend this nation, then you don’t deserve to live in America.
Thanks EJ. Right on target, right on time. CEP was zero/zero and 4×4 !
Who is going to pay the bill for supporting the whole population while they served the coutry? What are the ones who can’t do military duty going to do/ Work in the manufacuring plans preparing for the next Bush War? Oops! I forgot. We closed those plants and sent everything to China. Maybe we can send them over to work in the factories of our good friends, the Chinese.
Unfortunately, the present administration is fully in bed with the Chinese. Of course, they’re not the first administration to cuddle up to the Communists, but, hopefully, they well be the last.
As for paying for those doing service for the nation; that’s easy. Not everyone will want to or need to serve in a military role. I would dare say that over half would choose civilian service. These in the civilian rolls would be strategically place in positions that would not only pay for themselves, but produce additional revenue to help in other areas.
The same goes for those who Protest Taxes.
Man up and pay your fair share.
Defunding the government to pocket the extra profit for yourself is unpatriotic.
Defunding the government? Unless someone else wakes up early to go to my job and does my work for me, then they nave no right to what I earn. The federal government, as well as many states, have proven to be grossly irresponsible with “we the peoples” hard earned money.
I’m sure you’ve noticed that there is little difference between the jingoistic patriots and socialist spread the wealth crowd.
Two seemingly opposite paths (one under the guise of freedom and strength, the other, compassion and fairness), both leading to the same destination: state ownership of the individual.
You got to work because the Snowplow Man got up before you so that you could!
Tax Protesters NEVER protest the benefits!
Just their responsibility to pay for them!
Joe Snowplow is “we the people” too you know!
Our country isn’t trillions of dollars in debt because of Joe the snow plow man.
Here’s my issue with this, you’re making is sound like freedom is something that needs to be earned. I believe freedom needs not to be earned, but is our birthright as human beings. “Endowed by our creator”, so to speak.
Regardless of what you believe, freedom is not free, nor is it a birthright. If it were, billions around the world that have been born into slavery, servitude, or another non-freedom environment have been cheated out of their birthright. You should be thankful you were born in America. And you should be willing to help the nation survive.
And you should have pride for the country and respect the President. But obviously not all do ;)
I proudly wore Air Force blue for over 20 years, and would take a bullet to protect the President. What about you?
Am I the one calling him the boy President and saying he is trying to destroy the country?
No. You’re the one that incorrectly insinuates what other people say. I have never called the President a boy or a boy President. And his policies are destroying the country.
Now, are you going to answer my question? What about you?
You did call the President that. I’ve seen your comments. I’m not going to engage with a person who is actively dishonest. There is no point.
No, you are wrong. I remember the comment and it concerned a line in an article where it said that they sent a boy to do a man’s job. Several lefties blasted the comment as racist, and I attempted to remove the racist label based on the meaning of the comment. I never called him a boy or a boy President.
I take it this is your way of avoiding answering my question.
You called him a boy President and claimed there was nothing wrong with it. You pretended that there were no racist implications, but it was very clear what you were doing. Just like you call him messiah. You know what you’re doing.
You can take it however you want, you clearly don’t care about facts or honesty so, I don’t care what you think of me.
You have issues with your memory. I know exactly what I said, as expressed in the previous comment, and I stand by it.
By the way, the messiah label came from Louis Farrakhan in a speech about how Obama was going to save this nation. Just like the Magic Negro label came from a black columnist in California, but is used to label Rush Limbaugh as a racist just because he repeated the label.
But, tell you what: if you want to blame me, then go ahead. For over 20 years, I defended your right to be however ignorant you choose to be. If, on the other hand, you aren’t going to answer my question, then go bother someone else.
I’m ignorant? Still waiting for you to back up your 99% lie…I mean, claim.
Billions around the world are oppressed because their governments keep them that way. I never said that freedom cannot be infringed upon. I still believe that all humans are born with freedom as our birthright. Governments either protect it or infringe upon it.
Who are you to tell me (or anybody) that I don’t deserve to live here if I don’t quite see things the same way you do? Assist this nation how? Defend how and from who?
I’m not telling you anything. I was agreeing with the author. If you have a problem with that, then take it up with him.
Wrong, that is the whole point of our country, we get to freely disagree, and live our own lives. Not to be dictated to by the government. Mandatory services is wrong, plain and simple. It is bad enough the law requires 18 year old men to register with Selective Service so they may at some point be drafted. Service, whether military or civilian, should and must always be voluntary.
Well said.
The words “The President shall be Commander in Chief” can be taken in two ways. Traditionally, they’ve been taken as treating the role of CinC as part of the presidency, and so not subject to congressional control because of the separation of powers. This has resulted in just the confusion over who has control of the military that Mr. Sabato describes.
However, the same words can also be taken to mean that the person who is President shall be the person who is CinC – two separate offices held by one person, with no spillover between their functions. So when the person who is also President acts as CinC, he or she is subordinate to Congressional control as a part of the military, even while as President he or she remains fully independent.
This doesn’t mean that the CinC can’t act to defend the country against an immediate threat without congressional approval. That’s a power that even the lowest-ranking member of the military has, but anything beyond that requires congressional action.
If the nature of the CinC is seen this way, a War Powers Amendment is unnecessary since all war-making except for countering immediate threats is solely Congress’s responsibility. Of course, a Congress that is more concerned with its perks than its responsibilities will prefer the Amendment, since it puts any congressional action off for six months,
On another matter entirely, I wonder how Mr. Sabato proposes to implement “Universal National Service” without first repealing the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude. Bringing back slavery doesn’t sound very attractive to me, but maybe that’s just me. And don’t point to the Draft, that’s just pointing out one of the Supreme Court’s more embarrassing failures.
I don’t think these are terrible proposals.
My parents sent me to private school so I would not have to deal with teenage pregnancy, criminals in the schools, and rampant drug use. You propose making me “serve” next to gangbangers? While service is admired(my father served as well as my wife), lets keep choice in the mix as well.
duly noted .. from the elite to the gangbangers.. nice really really nice… best bring it up a notch ..your slip is showing
Choice is how we got ourselves into this mess. All should serve, regardless of wealth, race, sex, or stature. If you want to be called an American, then you should be willing to serve the nation for two years.
That is the soviet mentality, FYI. Nothing American about forcing individuals to serve. Even Bulgaria(former Soviet Bloc) only requires 2 years of service from 1 child per family(typically the first born.) How would the government pay every citizen for their two years? MORE TAXES? No thank you.
The idea sounds great, but when you start thinking about the details, it would not work out well. There are approx 4 MILLION 21 year olds. How would our government afford to pay 8 million people every year for their “service.” 8 million X$20,000(college grads when they can find a job get paid more)=$160,000,000,000. Yes, $160 BILLION more spending you are proposing(not counting benefits or other costs of hiring 8 million people.)
We already have the 2nd largest active duty army in the world at 1.4 million strong. We are going to add how many of these 8 million individuals to it(military and civil remember)?
It sounds great, and it sounds patriotic to say “Everyone MUST serve,” but it is not practical.
And to those of accusing me of being “elite,” my parents did not make $100,000 per year, and did not have millions of dollars, or set up trust funds. My mom was a public school teacher and did not want me in the schools she had taught at. This was not in Maine, and we lived in a large metro area where drugs, gangs, and dropouts were, and still are, rampant.
I finally agree with you on something!
Sieg Heil!
Privledged much?
Let them eat cake!
Visit somewhere urban and see how welcome you are! Check above for the real answer for just how “privileged” I was, with a public school teacher for a mom. You are assuming because I went to private school i must be RICH, and RICH is the new evil. I was not, and am not rich. My parents just wanted the best education they could afford for my brother and I, and so we skipped vacations, and my parents went into debt to pay for it.
People in private school don’t get pregnant (wink wink)
Not saying that is doesn’t happen, but in my four years of high school, we had 0 pregnancies. Compare that to the local MIDDLE school which had 2 or 3 every year per grade(Texas.)
Just because you do not see it, doesn’t mean it is not a real problem somewhere.
yes on the term limits to the supreme court.. yes on Universal National Service…no on the war powers act… and maybe on the rest… but otherwise good article with sensable concepts
Imbalance of power? Why should crowded states get more senators? Seems to me that would create a terrible imbalance in this chamber. I like that Maine’s voice in the Senate is as powerful as Texas’. The House already addresses the issue raised here. This part of the Constitution should be left alone. It is perfect as written.
Agreed. The other chamber, The House is designed to represent the population. The Senate represents the interest of the states.
Agreed.
Nobody has been able to explain to me why an American citizen who lives in California should have 1/66th the power in the United States Senate than one in Wyoming. “Protection of the states” sounds good until you think about it for a second.
Citizens are represented in the House. States in the Senate. Cheesy made that observation quite nicely.
WRONG! Evey citizens voice is equal in the house because every rep represents (roughly) the same number of citizens (about 3/4 of a million per, except in states like Wyoming, where they get a rep dispite having less than 600,000 people…another example of more populated areas getting screwed.) So, again….why is someone in Wyoming that much more powerful than someone in California or Texas. A representative democracy is either representative or it isnt.
Us low population states would have no power in deciding legislation if large population states controlled both houses. You do have a representative in the Senate, actually two. That is the purpose of a bicameral system. You are suggesting moving to a unicameral system. Some would agree with you.
I understand this. Let me rephrase. If I move from California to Wyoming, why should my vote all of a sudden become 66X more powerful? The Senate is much more powerful than the House, FYI.
Ayuh, you are totally correct. Most who want changes don’t understand the U.S.Constitution and the Federalist Papers,or are too progressive(liberal) and want to change it to their advantage.
And I have read, and do understand both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (and in fact, the Anti-Federalist Papers). To think that the Founders were envisioning a system where 18% of the country had the ability control everything is foolish. Find me a quote from the Federalist Papers that hints at that…..please….try and find one.
For the most part, I agree with the suggestions in this article. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices, mandatory service for all young people, an overhaul of the Presidential election system, and restoring the war powers balance are all great ideas. But, more Senators? Don’t know about that one. I think we have about 50 too many as it is.
I can honestly say I have never agreed with you ever, until now.
Did EJ trade teams?
Is this an Imposter?
LOL
You’re both on the same team, one is just wearing the home uni and the other the away uni.
Life time appointments for the Supreme Court need to stay. As the Founders rightly knew, those interpreting the Constitution need to be free of worrying about pleasing people, and concentrate more on interpreting the Constitution. Term limits are wrong for the Justices.
Mandatory service is wrong and completely against the ideology of our free nation.
Lifetime appointments should be eliminated. An appointment to the Supreme Court should be limited, and a limit would not interfere with the ability of the justice to make proper decisions. It would actually allow a justice to look forward to retirement.
As for mandatory service in either a civilian or military capacity, there is nothing wrong with expecting a citizen of the United States to give back a little in exchange for the freedoms and liberties that so many have fought and died for. Freedom is not free.
A Justice can retire anytime they want with their lifetime appointments intact. Mandatory service is the exact opposite of free. There is everything wrong with expecting an American Citizen to do anything. Freedom means choice. It means choosing to wear a uniform or not, it means choosing to vote or not, and it means not being required to give your services to the government. We ended required service when we abolished slavery.
We ended the draft in the early 1970s. And to actually believe that no one should be expected to do anything for America is selfish and arrogant. If everyone thought like you do, we’d be enslaved to a dictator. Those that are unwilling to defend their freedoms, deserve no freedoms.
No one mentioned that people would not defend our country. You have to trust that people will volunteer when and if there is an attack on our freedoms. Mandatory service does not do that. Mandatory service gets young men and women killed for political agendas, not to defend our sovereignty or freedom. Our Constitution has not been under attack for a very long time. Civil War, maybe an argument could be made. WWI – nope. WWII – nope. Korea – nope. Vietnam – nope. Gulf 1 – nope. Gulf 2 – nope. Afghanistan – nope. Yet you would require young people to die deposing a dictator who could no more destroy our freedoms than an ant. IF our Constitution ever comes under attack, you will see people lining up to defend it. Mandatory service is completely against the very foundations of this Nation. I was born free, it does not matter what side of a border line I was born on. Freedom is a human right. You say it is selfish and arrogant to not expect people to serve, I say it is dictatorial to require them to. I have trust in Americans that when there is a need, they will be there, voluntarily.
From what the author wrote, it can be assumed that the individual would have a choice between civilian service or military service. I do believe that choice would negate your comment; and it should give you a better feeling about such service.
No, requiring service is wrong, period. If you wanted to extend the G.I. Bill to include civilian services, by all means go for it. There again, it would be voluntary. Do you not see that mandatory service takes freedoms away?
I see a populace that needs an unselfish cause, and that cause should be the protection and betterment of this nation. I see those that have fought and died for our freedoms, and feel that it’s not asking too much for each and every able bodied citizen to give back something in exchange for those blood-stained freedoms. I see the greatest country on earth begin ruined by those that have voluntarily enslaved themselves to the government and are increasingly unwilling to do anything to earn their so-called entitlements. I see selfishness and dependency replacing patriotism and pride in the country.
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy, President.
Unless you are older than Moses, you have not seen anyone fight and die for our freedoms in military service. Our freedoms have not been in jeopardy since the Civil War. Martin Luther King, Jr. died in voluntary service for the rights and freedoms of all Americans. No one mandated that he did it, he simply did it because he could. If you will recall, when he called, many answered. These people did not come because they were mandated to, they came voluntarily. When the rights and freedoms of Americans are truly in trouble, Americans do not shy away. Just look at the passions stirred by SSM, those who see it as a civil right do all they can to make sure it passes and the right to marriage is for all, not just the few. You feel like people owe this country something. News flash, the people are this country. Our rights and freedoms are just that, rights. There is no cost for freedom, it is a human right. Your idealism is more in line with the Communists than free American’s.
I agree with war powers and supreme court, very much disagree with all else
Lame article. The Constitution was perfect as written, and amended still stands the test of time.
I don’t think anything man made will ever be perfect, but I would agree that our founding documents are some of the greatest ever devised by mankind. The only problem I have with the constitution, IMHO, is that it gives too much power to government.
You’re definitely right about anything man made never being perfect. This won’t stop some though from Constitution worship.
The Articles of Confederation were better in that there was virtually no centralized power. The Grand Convention, otherwise known as the Constitutional Convention was convened to strengthen the weak areas of the Articles of Confederation. Instead, secret meetings were held, and secret deals were made, and the Articles of Confederation were thrown out in favor of the Constitution.
Why would it be appropriate to never again amend the Constitution?
It would be challenging to fund the proposal to mandate all youth to serve, but perhaps they they may have more respect for their country when they finish their commitment. There is a total lack of respect by todays youth. In a general sense.
At first I thought this article was written by a High School-College Student, I was amazed that this guy is actually a college professor! The Constitution is not a Haphazard document just thrown together. It was well thought out. I came to the final conclusion that this guy was just trying to promote his book but all he really did was promote foolishness. He didn’t even need to make 5 points to prove it, any of his 2 were proof enough.
The Senate was designed to represent the interests of the individual states because those interests radically differed (slavery). That is not and should not be the case. The civil war ended “states-rights”. Now we should end the Senate. But some institution should check the power of the house.
Funding of Presidential elections is more important than primaries. Citizen United must be overturned. It gives corporations far too much power. Explicit restraints on corporate involvement in politics are necessary to allow people to govern themselves and to explude foreign corporate influence.
I disagree entirely with diluting the representation of the Senate and I believe the founding father would also. The Senate in the framers design was not to be representative of the ‘people’s rights’ per se but instead it was to represent the rights of the States as individual entities.
National service sounds like it is far removed from a free and just society but when you take a close look, it is a complex issue that needs careful thought. The military has become service of the poor and troubled to serve the interests of the wealthiest few. If legislators and leaders understood that by promoting war they were placing their own family members at risk, they would take more care in their deciding. The result is that Americans have grown callous to the real impacts of war on real families. We don’t see it because the press is barred from showing the coffins returning and because our corporate media also own defense contracting businesses.
War has become a vital for-profit piece of the economy. The amount we spend on “defense” dwarfs all investment in our people and our futures. Still it is considered sacrosanct to reduce military spending. The Pentagon has not undergone a complete audit in decades even while ever other program of government has been pared and trimmed and made more efficient.
The war powers of the president are the result of congress preferring not to make the vital decision and passing that off to the chief executive. The powers, as enumerated, were clear. Still with each passing decade, congress grows ever more insulated from their duty. The founders would not have given congress a pass on this tremendous responsibility. The lack of debate in going to war should be seen as a troubling sign that our politics have grown toxic and the people are even further removed from having a voice in this vitally important aspect of life in America. We are on a perilous course that will likely end with America at war with too many countries and that will result in our downfall. This has been the course of all imperial dynasties and we are making all the right moves to repeat history.
The civil service route could do a lot for the country as well in terms of jobs. It’d give young people “real world” experience and valuable training — something many employers seem to be skimping on these days. And for the more privileged, they’d be forced to experience life outside their bubble. Maybe with that kind of perspective, we’d be in a much better situation as a country.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” ~Abraham Lincoln~
Why is that some comments I can click “like” and it works and others, it won’t. However, I will click “like” again and it works. You figure. Can the BDN explain why?
To “overhaul” the Electoral College with more-populated states receiving additional electors, or abolish the Electoral College, would need a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing a constitutional amendment. The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States. Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state. The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. NationalPopularVote Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.
* * * The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’snationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Giventhe miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested arecount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
* * * Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-statewinner-take-all methods.The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reasonwhy state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
* * * The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
* * * We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
* * * The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
* * * Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
* * * The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
* * * No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
* * * The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College hasbeen set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and theNational Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.
Thanks BDN for not putting in my very noncombative comment. To bradygirl2(?) where do you think I’m coming from. You appear to assume that which I didn’t state. Are you for a centalized or decentralized national gov’t, the Electoral College and for democracy or for a Republic?