Thread: Is it time to update the US constitution?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/20/is-it-time-to-update-the-u-s-constitution-2/

Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?

We all know how Americans revere the Constitution, so I was struck by the news that tiny, little Iceland is actually junking its own Constitution and starting anew using an unusual - some would say innovative - mechanism.
The nation decided it needed a new Constitution and it's soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This social media method has worked. Ideas have been flowing in. Many have asked for guaranteed, good health care. Others want campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal. And some just want the country to make shark finning illegal.
There is a Constitutional Council. It incorporates some of these ideas, rejects others, but everything is done in plain sight on the web. As one member of the Constitutional Council said, the document is basically being drafted on the Internet.
Now, why do they need a new Constitution anyway? Well, after Iceland was crippled in recent years by the economic crisis, they all wanted a fresh start. And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.
You might be tempted to say that Iceland doesn't have any reasons to be proud of its political traditions in the manner that the United States does. Well, think again.
Iceland is home to the world's oldest parliament still in existence, the Althing, set up in 930 A.D. The rocky ledge on which they gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world. So Iceland has reasons to cherish its history, and yet it was willing to revise it.
By contrast, any talk of revising or revisiting the U.S. Constitution is, of course, seen as heresy. The United States Constitution was, as you know, drafted in a cramped room in Philadelphia in 1787 with shades drawn over the windows. It was signed by 39 people.
America at the time consisted of 13 states. Congress had 26 senators and 65 representatives. The entire population was about one percent of today's number - four million people.
America was an agricultural society, with no industry - not even cotton gins. The flush toilet had just been invented.
These were the circumstances under which this document was written.
Let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary work - one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history.
One amazing testament to it is the mere fact that it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years.
But our Constitution has been revised 27 times. Some of these revisions have been enormous and important, such as the abolition of slavery. Then there are areas that have evolved. For example, the power of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is barely mentioned in the document. This grew as a fact over history.
But there are surely some issues that still need to be debated and fixed.
The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent.
The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.
And we are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system.
So we could use the ideas of social media that were actually invented in this country to suggest a set of amendments to modernize the Constitution for the 21st Century.
Such a plan is not unheard of in American history.
After all, the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 initially meant not to create the Constitution as we now know it, but instead to revise the existing document, the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates saw a disconnect between the document that currently governed them and the needs of the nation, so their solution was to start anew.
I'm just suggesting we talk about a few revisions.

Zakaria has come under a lot of criticism from the wooly headed right for even bringing this subject up.
What do you think. Change it or leave it alone?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary work - one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history.

brought to you by the French "enlightenment"

Originally Posted by Humbert

The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent.

it is, but the founding fathers were even more afraid of populism and fascism opportunists and knew how the "people" were weak, hence the system was designed as such.

It's impossible to say for sure if it was really effective or not. I suspect it was, even though it has produced turds like GW Bush who didn't get voted on popularity but went through with the Collegial system.

I am not a Yank so really don't know much on the subject, but always liked that bit Government of the people by the people for the people. Don't know when they changed it to Government of the rich by the rich for the rich. Maybe just get back to basics. Jim

Many on the right consider the document infallable. In fact it is a product of another time and has many weaknesses. The US constitution enshrined slavery and it took 70 years to amend the constitution to make it illegal and another 100 years to really give voting rights to blacks.
With regard to the electoral college, the present system disenfranchises most voters. Key, large electoral college states determine who will be president and it matters little who one votes for in middle or small sized states.

Originally Posted by Humbert

With regard to the electoral college, the present system disenfranchises most voters.

Not really. Electoral college intended to protect small states. Each state is allowed number of electors based on number of representatives they have in Congress. The large populated states have more in the House so they have the most electors in Presidential elections. As flawed as the system may seem for any given election it may be in the best interest of small states. Abolishing the electoral college for a pure popular vote would surely be to the advantage of urban voters no matter which state. Believe there have been only three Presidents who have not received the popular vote but have won the election via electoral college vote. The last in 2000 where GW Bush became President with 47.9% vs Al Gores 48.4% of the popular vote. No electoral college and Gore would have been the Prez. In this case abolishing the electoral college makes sense. But, in general it is better than having a system where rural votes count for nothing.

^When is the last time a candidate visited Wyoming? Many states never come into play because they are firmly red or blue so their total popular vote becomes meaningless. Candidates only pay attention to states that can swing either way and award total blocs. If the popular vote was the basis for the election, the outcome would be much more reflective of the total popular will.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Humbert

With regard to the electoral college, the present system disenfranchises most voters.

Not really. Electoral college intended to protect small states. Each state is allowed number of electors based on number of representatives they have in Congress. The large populated states have more in the House so they have the most electors in Presidential elections. As flawed as the system may seem for any given election it may be in the best interest of small states. Abolishing the electoral college for a pure popular vote would surely be to the advantage of urban voters no matter which state. Believe there have been only three Presidents who have not received the popular vote but have won the election via electoral college vote. The last in 2000 where GW Bush became President with 47.9% vs Al Gores 48.4% of the popular vote. No electoral college and Gore would have been the Prez. In this case abolishing the electoral college makes sense. But, in general it is better than having a system where rural votes count for nothing.

I don't understand how/why "rural votes count for nothing." And, "Abolishing the electoral college for a pure popular vote would surely be to the advantage of urban voters..." I always thought that the popular vote was one man - one vote and when tallied up the man with the most votes won.

I am sure there are those on the Left who dream of an ammendment to the constitution that states it's everyone's right to free health care too...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

I am sure there are those on the Left who dream of an ammendment to the constitution that states it's everyone's right to free health care too...

What a horrible thought. A citizen getting access to health care.

I guess they can try anything they want to stave off the fact that they are bankrupt...amending the constitution over time is normal procedure for a changing world...whether or not this 'set of rules' is followed is another matter...
A country may need a solid 'guideline' to refer to...but many believe rules are made to be broken for advantage...goes without saying, really...

Leonard Cohen said it best: Democracy is coming...to the USA...

Whether they like it or not...

Originally Posted by Humbert

... We all know how Americans revere the Constitution
... What do you think. Change it or leave it alone?

Most Americans wouldn't know the Constitution if it walked up to them and smacked them in the face. Nevertheless, a very good topic that you are bringing up. The Electoral College must be abolished for sure.

Perhaps a revised Constitution should also acknowlege that the modern corporation often plays a more important role in our lives than government does and that additional civil rights might be needed. For example, free-speech and privacy rights are almost non-existent for employees who work for corporations. An employee can legally be fired for voicing an anti-management or controversial opinion. Perhaps the First Amendment to the Constitution should be changed to read:
" Congress or publically-held corporations shall make no law or regulation ... abridging the freedom of speech...

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

I am sure there are those on the Left who dream of an ammendment to the constitution that states it's everyone's right to free health care too...

What a horrible thought. A citizen getting access to health care.

The operative word here is "free". Socialism is terrific until you run out of other folks money - to paraphrase Lady Thatcher.

The problem is not the constitution and changing it would mean little, even if the current rabble could reach an agreement. The problem is that the American voters are stupid and easily manipulated and mislead. Your never going to get past that fact.
The right figured out the formula to convince American voters to vote against their own best interest long ago and now we wait for the result.
Democracy can only work when the voters are informed and have their own vision of their future. Compare the US to Germany, Norway, Denmark and others who are apparently moving forward without the huge free resources of the US and that tells the story.
HL Mencken said "Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses." and America seems to be demonstrating that.

Originally Posted by ceburat

"Abolishing the electoral college for a pure popular vote would surely be to the advantage of urban voters..." I always thought that the popular vote was one man - one vote and when tallied up the man with the most votes won.

It is one man one vote as you say. Urban area voters have a different set of concerns than rural voters. All over the US urban areas are bigger and growing rapidly as folks leave farms and small towns to seek employment in the big cities. Hence urban voters out number rural voters giving them an advantage if popular vote was in place.

An example of the different concerns would be Federal farm subsidies. Surely rural voters would never vote for a President who stated he/she would end these subsidies. Urban voters may well do so as it isn't a big issue for them.

Originally Posted by Humbert

When is the last time a candidate visited Wyoming?

Point taken but no matter a popular or electoral college candidates, will spend the most time and money in the states which bring the most votes.

Obama and Hillary did visit Wyoming however.

"LARAMIE, WY (wpr) - More than 1,000 people chanting "yes, we
can" greeted Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama this afternoon at a rally on the eve of the Wyoming caucus.

The Illinois senator told the overflow crowd that Americans are hungry for change and that he is the presidential candidate who can provide it. Obama said he would end the war in Iraq next year and
would reform the nation's health care system during his first term in the White House.

Sen. Hillary Clinton is also campaigning in Wyoming on Friday, holding events in Cheyenne and Casper.

The two remain locked in a close race for the Democratic nomination. At stake during Saturday's Wyoming caucuses are 12
delegates to the national convention this summer in Denver."

WPR: Sens. Obama and Clinton Visit Wyoming (2008-03-07)

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't want to see the talented people shift to becoming Wall Street gamblers because that is where the money is.

They could always go into cosmetic surgery, plenty of money there for people who enter the medical 'profession' motivated by financial concerns. Sadly, the medical profession in the US has transformed, in the last 50 years, into a means to get rich instead of means to heal and help people who are suffering. Jonas Salk wanted no compensation or patent rights for his invention of the polio vaccine, he believed the medical profession should not be defined by greed and profit.

The examples given for socialized medicine lack some important facts. Those countries which choose to embrace "free" medical care have a far greater chance of dying before their turn comes up in the queue for treatment or specialized care than the current system in America. The Constitution is fine as written, the problems have been created by the government by allowing liberal viewpoints to dilute the states rights granted under the constitution. Free medical care is/should be a case by case at the state level. The "progressive" European countries mentioned are usually smaller than some of our states and certainly have little reflection upon the world economy. Not to say they haven't added to the overall picture of humanity. But worldwide anyone with the resources comes to America to be treated or cured when faced with a personal health issue. Doctors earn every dime they make, whereas the drug companies are a world wide power who drive the overall cost of health care sky high.

Of course there are my opinions and everyone has opinions. I worked hard all my life to secure my retirement along with affordable health care, I really don't want to dilute that care by covering illegal immigrants and those who live cradle to grave on the public tit. Those same people make up the majority in the "urban" areas and look what that did for Detroit MI. Turned it into the biggest slum in America.

Jim

Originally Posted by attaboy

this model also proposes to impose price controls on doctor's pay. I think doctor's should be paid whatever fee the individual is willing to pay

You know, I realise it is considered 'unAmerican' on the right, but perhaps you should actually pay someone the cost of an economy class plane ticket to go and check for themselves the unimaginable poverty and squalor that our exploited doctors have to put up with under 'socialised' medicine. Just go to any private hospital or specialists clinic, and see the ferrari's, porsches, mercedes etc parked outside.

Or perhaps pop by Silverwater Jail in Sydney, and pay a visit to Dr Suresh Nair, neurosurgeon. He was spending over $300,000 per year on his cocaine habit, but unfortunately after a second prostitute died in his luxurious apartment the law got involved. I mean really, how much do you pay your Fox talking heads? Can't they even afford an airplane ticket?