P-G article about a Constitutional Convention - local thoughts? (Columbia: budget, estate)

[pman]

the last convention (the second one, after they scrapped the articles of confederation) was a difficult process and ultimately had to be followed up by a bloody war. I don't see any issue with a governing blueprint being valid for a long time as we haven't changed much in thousands of years as a people. cultures change but a basic, flexible form of represenative government should probably be good for as long as humanity exists except for the fact that the humans run it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

I don't see any issue with a governing blueprint being valid for a long time as we haven't changed much in thousands of years as a people.

I'll give you through the 12th Amendment as included within the initial tweaking period. But I don't see how the Constitution could have remained in force without the combination of 13-15, 17, 19, 24, and 25 and maybe 16, 22, 23, and 26.

cultures change but a basic, flexible form of represenative government should probably be good for as long as humanity exists

Well, one obvious point is a lot of those amendments pertain to exactly who gets to vote for the representatives. Norms about that have changed since the original Constitution, and I really don't think that Constitution would have survived without changing to reflect those changing norms.

The other obvious point is that it is by no means clear our constitution does provide a "flexible" form of representative government. Rather, it may only be capable of functioning if certain outside conditions fall within relatively narrow parameters.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But that cuts both ways. From a neutral perspective, it may seem implausible that a governing blueprint can remain viable for such a long period of time.

Of course a reasonable response to that point is that our current constitution actually hasn't remained unchanged, since through the amendment process certain very important changes have been enacted (e.g., it is rather hard for me to imagine it would have lasted this long without the 19th Amendment). But in turn that means it really isn't the case we have had an unbroken 222 year run under the same constitution.

So this becomes a more specific question of whether or not the current amendment process in the Constitution can still be used to make the changes that are necessary for the Constitution to remain viable. And to the extent people are arguing such a process is difficult to imagine, it is only supporting the argument that we may have reached the point that a new constitution with its own ratification rules will be the only viable way forward.

I didn't say the Constitution hadn't remained unchanged, but for a document written 224 years ago, it has changed very little. The Bill of Rights were written and ratified two years after the ratification of the Constitution. Since that time only 17 amendments were ratified in the next 220 years.

Regarding "whether or not the current amendment process in the Constitution can still be used to make the changes that are necessary for the Constitution to remain viable," I agree with you. It is too difficult to amend the Constitution and our government has evolved despite changes to the Constitution. The ongoing debate over state rights vs. federal power, the power of the President, e.g., executive orders, commiting military force; and the role of the Supreme Court are all issues that need clarification in the Constitution.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

I didn't say the Constitution hadn't remained unchanged, but for a document written 224 years ago, it has changed very little. The Bill of Rights were written and ratified two years after the ratification of the Constitution. Since that time only 17 amendments were ratified in the next 220 years.

I'm not sure counting amendments is the right way to assess the magnitude of change. The amendments I noted above collectively have changed a great deal, and I would again suggest the Constitution would not have remained viable absent those collective changes.

The ongoing debate over state rights vs. federal power, the power of the President, e.g., executive orders, commiting military force; and the role of the Supreme Court are all issues that need clarification in the Constitution.

Presidential systems in general have some notorious problems associated with them, including a tendency to authoritarianism and confusions about accountability that can create perverse incentives. Defenders of presidential systems have sometimes pointed to the actual history of the United States as a counter-example, but I think critics of presidential systems could point to our recent history and suggest they are finally being vindicated.

So what happens if it proves true that our presidential system is no longer viable? It is not that there are no obvious alternatives, but the question would be out to get there from here.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

To make a somewhat obvious supporting point, the Constitution was also amended at the end of the Civil War in ways designed to address the shortcomings that led to the Civil War. And while I am not questioning the validity of the resulting "Reconstruction Amendments", the ratification process was slightly . . . irregular (e.g., the Reconstruction Acts made ratification of the 14th Amendment a condition of the Southern states escaping military governance).

"somewhat obvious supporting point" - Obvious to who? The biggest shortcoming in the Constitution that led to the Civil War was whether states could secede or not. An amendment was proposed before Lincoln to office that would have forbid secession. Lincoln himself decided they could not.

Regarding the validity of the Reconstruction amendments, the 14th Amendment was never constitutionally proposed or ratified.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So what happens if it proves true that our presidential system is no longer viable? It is not that there are no obvious alternatives, but the question would be out to get there from here.

We go back to the original intent of the framers with a system of checks and balances. Executive orders are a loophole in the Constitution.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

The biggest shortcoming in the Constitution that led to the Civil War was whether states could secede or not.

I think the legality of slavery, and in general a lack of a guarantee of fundamental rights with respect to state and local governments, also count as major constitutional shortcomings that led to the Civil War.

Conversely, I'm not sure a provision prohibiting secession would have worked to stop the Civil War, even if it was in the Constitution from the beginning.

Regarding the validity of the Reconstruction amendments, the 14th Amendment was never constitutionally proposed or ratified.

Well there you go--in your view, at least, the 14th Amendment counts as at least one example of our Constitution having been successfully (and fundamentally) changed without following its internal amendment procedures.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

We go back to the original intent of the framers with a system of checks and balances. Executive orders are a loophole in the Constitution.

Executive orders date to 1789, and there has to be some mechanism for the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." If not by giving orders to other executive officers, how is a President supposed to do that?

The real issue is not the mechanisms by which the President exercises power, but the actual separation of powers between a separately-elected President and Congress. It just may not be the case that "checks and balances" are more of a good thing than a bad thing, at least not outside of narrow constraints.

Anyway, regardless of your vision for the next constitution--how do we get there from here remains an interesting question if the amendment rules in the current constitution cannot accommodate such a change.

[Clint.]

BrianTH I think you raise a valid insight:

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think the legality of slavery, and in general a lack of a guarantee of fundamental rights with respect to state and local governments, also count as major constitutional shortcomings that led to the Civil War.

Conversely, I'm not sure a provision prohibiting secession would have worked to stop the Civil War, even if it was in the Constitution from the beginning

I'm more and more inclined to think that slavery itself fundamentally influenced the design of the constitution and the structure of government, and a case can be made, I think, that a lot of the governmental problems that frustrate people today are thus a byproduct of slavery. This probably oversimplifies the situation, but the system of checks and balances was a safeguard for the South against Northern 'tyranny'. The Three-Fifths Compromise shows what a vital point this was, and the haggling it took to get to 3/5 demonstrates that this was not a uniquely harmonious era of founding - Southern states (not so long ago colonies) needed inducement to join the Union! The Missouri Compromise of 1820, though after ratification, is another insight into the thinking of the time. Right up until the Civil War this was a simmering issue. I don't intend to suggest racism has anything to do with anything at this point, just that the institution of slavery (and therefore the strong concern with states' rights) was a powerful factor that shaped the organization of U.S. government structure.

The amendment process needs to wind through state governments...fat chance of that happening! It was difficult to do when there were fewer states with less distracted state legislators.

The right to personal liberty and freedom are essential (maybe even self evident), and regarding concerns about a loss of rights with seriously opening up the Constitution for revision - whether via amendment or something else - I'd say it's too late to worry about encroachment of rights because it's already happening. Consider the Bill of Rights - Amendment III is the only one I can think of that hasn't been abused. Amendment II (valid and important as it) gets a lot of press, but I think that's more spin and propaganda than anything - armaments clearly do not 100% ensure the integrity of the other 9 amendments or compel elected representatives to be responsive...although, folks around here during 1794 gave it a good try.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Anyway, regardless of your vision for the next constitution--how do we get there from here remains an interesting question if the amendment rules in the current constitution cannot accommodate such a change.

What an essentially practical question!