Constitutionally
Then, it was a new nation, a revolutionarily new kind of nation, in the late 18th century. People rode on horseback, in buggies, wagons, stagecoaches, and on shanksmare; sailed, rowed, and poled the water(s); and communicated via letters carried on these means of transportation. A new nation formed up of 13 (newly wed) former colonies with a population of about 4 million, including some 700,000 enslaved and excluding some 150,000 Native Americans. It was the very early days of the Industrial Revolution. There was an elite slaver aristocracy of landed gentry; there were tradesmen, craftsmen, and yeoman farmers. It looked a lot like that of 17th-18th century England with space available. Except, there was no monarch. Instead, it was, “we the people.” We, the people who had declared their independence, who had declared, “that all men are created equal.” As Lincoln would later say, with, “government of the people by the people, for the people.”
Now, early in the 21st century, in a world with jet airplanes and rocket spaceships, untold satellites, electric automobiles and skateboards, and maglev trains, fifty plus years into the digital age with instant communications, sixty plus years into Climate Change that is poised to be cataclysmic; we are a colossus nation of 50 states with a population of some 330 million whose democracy is in peril. That same democracy they fought and died for in the Revolutionary War — that same democracy that changed the world forever.
The US Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. The Declaration of Independence (written and ratified in 1776) was a formal declaration of the American Revolutionary War, (aka American War of Indepence) which began in 1775 and ended 1783; was a war fought for the democracy of the Declaration of Independence. It is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that is our nation’s lodestar.
When they, the Constitutional Convention, met in 1787 to write the Constitution, they had the musings and theories of the Age of Enlightenment’s John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rosseau, Voltaire, the history of the Roman Republic, circa 509 – 26 BCE, and some 11 years tinkering with earlier models.
We have access to all that plus 250 years experience with democracy here and elsewhere since.
They had George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Mason, James Madison, and more.
Today, we have a major political party made up of cowards and believers led by Donald J Trump, who don’t like democracy, even government, in the majority. Except for a few among the other major political party, our political leaders are simply not of that caliber. To attain that caliber, we would need to call on academia.
They were so bold, so brave; went where the brave dare not go. Stepped up; met the challenge of the times. Took the evolutionary step; looked as far forward as they could. Produced a Constitution that more or less sufficed for 200-plus years.
Now is the time for us to step up to the challenge at hand; take that next evolutionary step. We must strive to be at least as bold; set about writing a constitution that will last 240 years — better yet — a living one that will last indefinitely.
More or less, but never quite up to the task of evolving. Hamstrung from the start by pulling back to protect the interest of the aristocracy, the wealthy, those opposed to change; now near collapse from a 50 year assault by a coalition of interests that gave us Congressional majorities (both houses) that are opposed to democracy, don’t like government or governing, a Supreme Court majority of ideologues who don’t believe in democracy, and Donald J Trump.
Now, antiquated and failing. Failing to deal with the present assault on democracy, progress, and the nation itself; to deal with the digital age and its consequences, the future. Leading us backwards instead of forward.
The coalition of interests’ coup was made successful in large part by way of a big loophole in the Constitution, the selection process. A loophole through which racist, retrograde red states sent people to Congress to use the government to disenfranchise voters they didn’t like/didn’t agree with, fight culture wars, tear down democracy, and, wittingly or not, serve wealthy interests. Sent people who had no business being there. One through which political ideologues who didn’t believe in democracy were appointed to lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court. A selection process that allowed someone so unqualified as Trump to run for and win the Presidency.
Our two-party system, ad hoc, purloined, is, rightfully or wrongly, responsible for those appointments to Congress and the Presidency. Democracy demands that the people have a voice, that their voices be equally heard. The Constitution should ensure that their voices are equally heard and require that candidates be qualified for office.
Both political parties and the Supreme Court have hindered ideas coming up from the bottom, from we the people.
The current political selection process (primaries) produces candidates who are chosen by a very small minority of the people, disempowers the majority, and does not require that candidates be well qualified or well suited for the office.
The people, not the parties, should get to decide on candidates.
Gerrymandered districts deny minority party voters their voice.
Voting is an expression of freedom of speech
Money in politics denies people their voice. In the current two-party, primary system of expensive campaigning, moneyed interests can and do determine the selection process and the election outcome. Each of the current majority of Supreme Justices owes their nominations and appointments to dark money; they are more representative of the Catholic Church, of the Heritage Foundation, than of the people.
Over the past 16 years, the Supreme Court has found reason to further empower wealth and allow gerrymandering which disenfranchises minority voters
Republicans hold a 53% majority in the US Senate, but those republican senators represent only 47% of the population. That 47% decided who got to sit on the Supreme Court, not to impeach Donald J Trump (twice), and confirmed Kristi Noem, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, and a slew of right-wing judges to the federal courts.
Some of our 50 states are more responsible for the damage done and being done to democracy than others; some are more of a hindrance to progress than others. Should states be required to meet a standard for membership in the United States? Should the United States be able to cut the anchor chain on states that are racist, are pro-theocracy, pro-autocracy, pro-oligarchy, or too retro?
In this 21st Century, all US citizens can easily access unlimited information about political issues, and candidates’ qualifications and positions; the qualifications for each office could be listed; and anyone seeking office can post their qualifications and positions on the issues on the internet. Debates could be videoed, and the videos made readily accessible. In this 21st Century, there is no need to spend money on expensive TV ads or social media Bots. There is no need for private money in politics. Our politics won’t be clean and fair, our democracy won’t be healthy, until the influence of money is gone.
In this 21st Century, there is no need for polling places
Jefferson thought a well-educated populace would preclude the rise of enemies to democracy, such as demagogues, autocrats, oligarchs, theocrats, … Earlier, in the same vein, Plato thought the problem was that the masses weren’t trained to think well. Maybe the US Constitution needs to be idiot-proof; ensure that only qualified candidates and issues germane to governance are on the ballot.
The opposition to a new or updated Constitution will be fierce.
Wealth interests see democracy as a threat to their wealth, their social position, and their access to power. They would rather have either an autocracy or an oligarchy than a democracy.
Those of the religious right would live by their scripture of choice and force everyone else to do so also. Democracy is not in their scripture, nor is science or reality. A lot of what is in their scripture is wrong — was wrong then — was always wrong. Slavery was never right. Kings, lords, and masters were never legitimate. Racism was never right. Their scripture lacks relevance.
Would-be autocrats, oligarchs, despots of all sorts dislike democracy because it denies them the right to plunder the nation’s wealth.
The anti-democracy forces will not go away gently.
Not a majority. A highly vocal, highly manipulative minority who through fifty and more of brainwashing have convinced us they are in the majority. The same minority imposing a tyranny on the majority as so frequently cited as cause for the Second Amendment
Otherwise excellent, write on …
We need a constitution for the 21st century of transportation and communication.
1) Replace states and counties, the root of many problems, with 340 districts of 1 million people divided into 20 cantons of 50,000. The district leaders will hold both executive power and legislative power (in a council of districts).
2) The second chamber must also be decentralized and massive. Too big and difficult for lobbyists and corporations to dominate. About 34,000 voting remotely, elected by alphabetical order. Business organized by an executive committee to prevent things from getting unwieldy.
3) Decentralized executive departments whose heads are nominated and elected by one or both legislative bodies and whose terms don’t follow any presidents. Finance can be in New York, culture in Miami, transport in Atlanta, war in San Antonio, agriculture in Chicago, science and tech in Seattle, interior in Denver, etc. Your mileage may vary.
4) Courts never have any right to overturn a national statute, much less a part of the constitution (oh, that’s in the current constitution).
5) The head of state will be elected annually by the large body, have no veto or pardon or other “king-like” powers. The actual head of government may emerge formally or informally as the constitution functions. A “first among equals” might emerge from the council of districts.
6) All voting by ranked choice. We led in political theory in 1787. Time to lead again.
E Clingan:
Is there an overall name for this new form of government? By the way, I rearranged your comment to make it “more” readable.
@Clingan,
Interesting and provocative.
If the House just went back to being roughly representative, it would be massively expanded.
I would have added: expand the SCOTUS to 13 members and set the age limit to 70.
Some of these changes would require Constitutional amendments, which won’t happen.
This post allowed me to make a comment. The very big majority stop loading prior to the comment box. This nearly always is the full post plus one “stripe” ad…full page width, but thin. The ad is the last thing that loads. Let it sit once for 2 hours just to see. Happens on at least 4 separate devices and on all 4 the browser handles everything else without problems.
Eric:
I am not sure what you mean.
Eric:
I need better information than what you are telling me. I may be able to fix this. I do not see an ad when I am at Angry Bear. There are ads on AB. They pay for internet server, name protection, and any programing we need. No ad should be blocking half or a complete post by Joel, me. or others. I reviewed this once before with them. Can you take a picture of what you are seeing? You can use screenshot to capture it.
PS: I did send you an email.
Ken, E Clingan,
The Constitutional changes you suggest are interesting and provocative (as suggested by Joel), and in fact, there are many changes and reforms that have been suggested over the years — major changes and relatively minor changes.
However, every time I let my mind wander into those thoughts, I get bogged down with the reality of the process, the necessity for immediate changes, and the timing, education, and coalition-building that would be required to make even minor Constitutional changes.
Therefore, to address the necessity of immediate changes to correct existing bad decision-making, I try to focus on changes and reforms that could be implemented by Congressional leadership and majority votes and/or supermajority in some cases. If some of these reforms could be achieved it might be possible to move toward more significant Constitutional reforms down the road.
However, even these types of reforms are nearly impossible to achieve considering our divisional politics and lack of a fully engaged electorate. Reforms such as the filibuster, the discharge petition process, legislative committee structures, regular order, Senatorial “hold” procedures, and many others are all possible and would make huge differences in how the government makes decisions. All without Constitutional changes.
I’m reminded of George Washington’s warning in his farewell address, where he said, “…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.”
The “duty of a wise People.” The pubic is not fully engaged in its responsibility under our democracy, as evidenced by the fact that 90 million did not even vote. The conclusion is that we, as a public, are not very wise, and we are paying for our stupidity.
@JP,
Well said.
Neither expanding the court nor eliminating the filibuster require a Constitutional amendment.
J.P.
It was October 2009 and I was here at Angry Bear with Dan Crawford as well as others. Since then, Dan has died as well as Robert Waldman. Others have wandered off and occasionally stop by. Like I was saying it was October 2009 and I was visiting my eldest son who lived on the north side of the city with his family. I was in the area to go to a gathering called “Showdown in Chicago.” It was a gathering of people protesting Big Bank.
“After taking our trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout, these big banks have been doling out huge executive bonuses, raking in profits and spending millions to defeat reform that would crack down on their risky and predatory practices.”
It was cold and damp that day. Downtown Chicago near the bankers convention was not warm at all in October with the wind coming off of the nearby Lake Michigan. Yet, they marched and I attended the meeting which had hundreds of protestors with a large indoor area. Even Senator Durbin was there along with other speakers. It was interesting and I did write a piece for Angry Bear back then.
Does this still happen today. I believe it does. We are just not that aware of it. Maybe I am missing the ones channeling on the Financial Industry of takers and not givers. With Trump returning to office and supported by a Republican party more concerned with the upper 10% in income and business, we are paying a price.
People (~3million did not vote that voted in the last election) did not turn out. People voted for others such as Robert Kennedy plus others or voted for others not on the ballot, etc. I do not understand the ignorance of not voting. If it was to punish the politicians, the Democrats, or to protest having a woman of color on the ballot; they sure taught the nation a lesson. Didn’t they?
I was running the numbers of voting turnout going back to 1960. Dave Leips site has the numeric for each election year. There were only three times were voting turnout exceeded 60%. Just to give Angry Bear a perspective about how the nation screws itself over.
1960: 63.1% turnout. Kennedy won.
1964: 61.9% turnout. Johnson won.
2020: 61.4% turnout. Biden won.
As J.P. points out, people do not vote and we and the nation pay the price with having the worst president ever in the White House. Never mind the late start, such is a superficial argument to make for not voting or voting for what we have in office today. Never mind a female of color might have occupied the White House.
You better mind what this president may attempt at the end of his term. More likely than not this is already in motion.