Is the us in need of a new constitution?

[Freddie53]

The case for a new Constitution – Alternet.org

THE CASE FOR A NEW CONSTITUTION

Published January 10, 2019

Is the U. S. A. Constitution still relevant in American life?

Are we, in fact, a democracy 230 years after our founding by 18th century Enlightenment thinkers? If the sunshine of free and open speech is the best disinfectant for corruption and an informed, universally enabled electorate, it appears that this nation has been operating under a permanent fog for the last 30 years.

*** *** *** ***

"The state of Wyoming with a population of around 600,000, has the same number of senators as California, with a population of nearly 40 million. A senator from a state comprising barely one percent of the population of the United States (Kentucky) has gummed up the entire legislative process for the other 99% of Americans."

A few other examples (not all) from the article:

"The American citizens of Puerto Rico have virtually no (voting) representation in Congress yet pay the same income and other federal taxes as the rest of the country. This used to be called 'taxation without representation.'"

"The right to vote is not universally given by states ... Suppression of the vote abounds in some states.

"Gerrymandering of congressional districts is rampant, freezing out the impact of the votes of some to the benefit of others.

"If America was a democracy, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore would have been elected president.

(53 Republican Senators in the new (2018) Senate majority will represent only 47.8 percent of the population of the 50 states. This does not account for U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, the other Pacific Islands.)

*** *** *** *** ***

"And so, here we are, prisoners of a flawed, 18th century document in need of updating, correcting evolving iniquities. Maybe what is needed a true conversation about the efficacy of 50 sovereign states acting as one to the benefit of all in this century?"

My Comments:

So what do you think? Can we fix problems this aging document has via the *constitutional amendment route or is a completely new document needed?

Or, perhaps, an unwritten constitution like in the UK would be better. I don't know enough how that works in the UK to comment on it. However, it may be an option for the US as well.

* (The article states the various ways amendments may be added to the US Constitution.)

 

[Freddie53]

What do you all think? If you are not an American, you are welcome to post. Please note that on your comment and if it is public knowledge tell us where your nationality. I'm really interested in the advantages of an unwritten constitution such as in the UK.

 

[Drifterwood]

Hi Freddie.

I have made a similar point several times on this board over the years and generally attracted the ire of the US citizen whose point I was arguing against, most recently was likely the right to bare arms.

I am a Brit, but am uncomfortable with an unwritten constitution, not that we don't write things down for future reference. A written constitution allows a society to set new standards. The UK has never broken with the past, and the past was not necessarily a golden age. However, as I think you have found with your own piece of paper, it does become dated and in need of rewriting or ripping up and starting again.

Perhaps once a generation, a constitution should be overhauled and remodelled so as to be relevant to the people who will abide by it and be governed by it. The dangers of enshrining a constitution, rather like ancient religious texts, is that the world and people change, we don't stone people to death anymore for coveting asses, and they can be taken to be set in stone (like Hammurabi's original) and take on a quasi religious mantle.

Managed evolution would be my vote for a written constitution.

 

[SonyToyo]

What a joke haha

You’re basically talking about getting rid of the electoral college, which will allow 2 states (CA and NY) to decide the election for the entire country.

No no no.

 

[HorseHung40's]

A re-written constitution may address these issues adequately; however, it, too, will have loopholes that will create other, as-of-yet-unforeseen issues. The fact that WY and CA send the same number of senators to DC is a way for the voices of the less populated states to be heard. In this way, the country's political will is not dominated by the desires of CA, TX, FL and NY.

 

[wallyj84]

Yes, I think the constitution should be rewritten. We should keep the bill of rights, which is what most people think of when they talk about the constitution, but everything else should change to better reflect the current state of the country.

 

[185248]

So...Ok. A proposal is placed on the table. Who gets to write...or rewrite a nation's constitution?

If you took a cross section of society as it stands today there would be no agreement whatsoever between parties on what would be placed in writing. None.

Society at this point in time is so fragmented and so far apart from the middle ground from whence the first constitution was born.

Then, it was a time of the many, having the sole purpose for the greater good of all and the best predictions for the future with the prevailing problems society at that time was facing.

They were able to work together.

Now....it's a time of selfishness, want more.... and absolute greed. It would not be a Constitution....it would be a Disconstitution.

No, now is not a good time to rewrite.

Wait 20 years. Then it might be.

Well, for Wally, there could be a wee penis clause.

 

[wallyj84]

So...Ok. A proposal is placed on the table. Who gets to write...or rewrite a nation's constitution?

If you took a cross section of society as it stands today there would be no agreement whatsoever between parties on what would be placed in writing. None.

Society at this point in time is so fragmented and so far apart from the middle ground from whence the first constitution was born.

Then, it was a time of the many, having the sole purpose for the greater good of all and the best predictions for the future with the prevailing problems society at that time was facing.

They were able to work together.

Now....it's a time of selfishness, want more.... and absolute greed. It would not be a Constitution....it would be a Disconstitution.

No, now is not a good time to rewrite.

Wait 20 years. Then it might be.

Well, for Wally, there could be a wee penis clause.

I honestly think there would be more agreement than one might think. The big problems would be wedge issues like guns or abortion, but if you took that off the table and just made the focus on the structure and role of the federal government I think people would find a lot more common ground.

 

[SonyToyo]

A re-written constitution may address these issues adequately; however, it, too, will have loopholes that will create other, as-of-yet-unforeseen issues. The fact that WY and CA send the same number of senators to DC is a way for the voices of the less populated states to be heard. In this way, the country's political will is not dominated by the desires of CA, TX, FL and NY.

This exactly.

Funnily enough, no one calls for the electoral college to be abolished when a democrat wins lol

 

[Klingsor]

You’re basically talking about getting rid of the electoral college, which will allow 2 states (CA and NY) to decide the election for the entire country.

Based on estimates for 2016, California and New York have a combined population of just under 59 million, out of a total U.S. population of about 323 million. Thus those two states together make up a little over 18% of the population--a significant portion, no doubt, but not enough to decide an election by themselves.

 

[Klingsor]

Funnily enough, no one calls for the electoral college to be abolished when a democrat wins lol

That's because when a Democrat wins the election, they also win the popular vote.

 

[Industrialsize]

That's because when a Democrat wins the election, they also win the popular vote.

Also: That's because when a Democrat loses the election, they also win the popular vote

 

[Perados]

A re-written constitution may address these issues adequately; however, it, too, will have loopholes that will create other, as-of-yet-unforeseen issues. The fact that WY and CA send the same number of senators to DC is a way for the voices of the less populated states to be heard. In this way, the country's political will is not dominated by the desires of CA, TX, FL and NY.

Germany is a federation and the 16 member states of Germany send representatives to Berlin just like US state send them to Washington.
Just like the USA we have large differences in population between the states. I agree that a 100% proportion in representation might not be the best idea. Small member states would become way too unimportant and only two or three could dictate every desition.
On the other hand is a system where every member has exactly the same numbers of vote, independent from their population, barely any better.

Our system gives smaller members an higher number in votes as they would get in rate to their population. Larger members still have more votes then smaller.
This creates a balanced system, where the size of population gets acknowledge but smaller members still have a say.

 

[Freddie53]

When the US Constitution was first ratified, the House was to represent the people and the Senate to represent the states. Each state legislature selected their two Senators which serve staggered terms. Every two years only 1/3 of the Senators are elected. That is still being done.*

In the latter half of the 19th century there began a campaign to have the people elect their senators. I don't remember the year that this amendment was ratified, but it was somewhere around 1900 give or take 25 years.

I like the idea that the German federal republic uses: (See Perados' post With such a huge range is now there that will only get bigger over time. Wyoming is not likely to boom anytime soon. California on the other hand will continue to grow. With 39 million people and by itself the tenth largest economy in the world. California is getting getting into the range of the average European nation.

PERHAPS HAVE THREE SENATORS PER STATE

Perhaps the US should consider having three senators per state. Then one senator would be up for reelection every two years. As it is now. every six years neither senate seat term is up.

WHAT ABOUT A WEIGHTED SYSTEM

If the US were to go with three senators, perhaps a weighted system could be used. The largest state would have two votes from each senator, the smallest state would have only one vote per senator with all other states somewhere in between. This still protects the smaller states, but if this were done, neither the large states, nor the small states would have de facto veto power over the other. As it is now, if all the small states have senators from the same party, the small states could overrule any legislation that the large states favors.

WHAT ABOUT WEIGHTED VOTES

The US could also use popular vote totals in a different way. For instance, if Wyoming has two senators on a weighted system the senators would be selected by party. If the Republicans were to get 60 % of the vote in the election for just one senator position, there could be one person selected by the Republicans who would have 60 % of one vote - 0.6. The Democrats would select a person who would have only 40% - 0.4.

It is my understanding that using weighted voting is used in Germany and perhaps other European nations for the lower house which has many more representatives than 150. I would like to hear from those who have experienced this kind of voting in your nation. I know that it takes 5 % vote to get representation which is I like. For the upper house with only 150 senators, I would require 10 % of the popular vote to get representation in the Senate.

* Each senator is elected to a six year term. Example: Senator A is elected in 2016. Senator B is elected in 2018. Senator A still has two years until his term is up. Senator B has four more years to serve. The cycle is adjusted so that 1/3 of the senators are elected every two years.

This is one concept I am in favor of keeping in some form. That way there is some continuation of government. If some new far fetched idea were to come along that was to later be found to be questionable, it would take at least two elections to get a majority of the senators in favor elected if there were no senators in favor at first.

 

[Fred90]

When the US Constitution was first ratified, the House was to represent the people and the Senate to represent the states. Each state legislature selected their two Senators which serve staggered terms. Every two years only 1/3 of the Senators are elected. That is still being done.*

In the latter half of the 19th century there began a campaign to have the people elect their senators. I don't remember the year that this amendment was ratified, but it was somewhere around 1900 give or take 25 years.

I like the idea that the German federal republic uses: (See Perados' post With such a huge range is now there that will only get bigger over time. Wyoming is not likely to boom anytime soon. California on the other hand will continue to grow. With 39 million people and by itself the tenth largest economy in the world. California is getting getting into the range of the average European nation.

PERHAPS HAVE THREE SENATORS PER STATE

Perhaps the US should consider having three senators per state. Then one senator would be up for reelection every two years. As it is now. every six years neither senate seat term is up.

WHAT ABOUT A WEIGHTED SYSTEM

If the US were to go with three senators, perhaps a weighted system could be used. The largest state would have two votes from each senator, the smallest state would have only one vote per senator with all other states somewhere in between. This still protects the smaller states, but if this were done, neither the large states, nor the small states would have de facto veto power over the other. As it is now, if all the small states have senators from the same party, the small states could overrule any legislation that the large states favors.

WHAT ABOUT WEIGHTED VOTES

The US could also use popular vote totals in a different way. For instance, if Wyoming has two senators on a weighted system the senators would be selected by party. If the Republicans were to get 60 % of the vote in the election for just one senator position, there could be one person selected by the Republicans who would have 60 % of one vote - 0.6. The Democrats would select a person who would have only 40% - 0.4.

It is my understanding that using weighted voting is used in Germany and perhaps other European nations for the lower house which has many more representatives than 150. I would like to hear from those who have experienced this kind of voting in your nation. I know that it takes 5 % vote to get representation which is I like. For the upper house with only 150 senators, I would require 10 % of the popular vote to get representation in the Senate.

* Each senator is elected to a six year term. Example: Senator A is elected in 2016. Senator B is elected in 2018. Senator A still has two years until his term is up. Senator B has four more years to serve. The cycle is adjusted so that 1/3 of the senators are elected every two years.

This is one concept I am in favor of keeping in some form. That way there is some continuation of government. If some new far fetched idea were to come along that was to later be found to be questionable, it would take at least two elections to get a majority of the senators in favor elected if there were no senators in favor at first.

Interesting ideas.

 

[keenobserver]

Yes, I think the constitution should be rewritten. We should keep the bill of rights, which is what most people think of when they talk about the constitution, but everything else should change to better reflect the current state of the country.

Actually it is the Bill of Rights that is causing the most problems. The 2nd Amendment is part of same said Bill of Rights. The rest of it is generally workable. However there are a couple realities here. First - the glaring issue with the electoral college is still critical fabric in balancing the states. Small states will not give that up - it just won't happen. Even if they are unhappy with Trump, the fact that their votes undermined the urban areas is worthwhile to them. Until Democrats in particular make the effort to win in these states we are not going to be trusted - period. They have been called flyover states for a reason and too often I see national campaigns ignore them because "we can't win there." That really has to change. If a party can not broaden itself to reach into all states for support there is no way they win and get to Washington and work for progress.

The second issue is the money. If we actually have another Constitutional convention - which I dread the thought of - the special interests will own it lock stock and smoking barrels. Count on it. It would give a new meaning to the term "Parliament of whores." My preference would be piecemeal repair by amendment - it is not without risks but with a long steady debate, one issue at a time there might emerge some consensus that does not enslave us to the monied elite for the next two hundred and fifty years.

The Constitution should not reflect the current state of the country. It should provide a framework - which it generally does - to allow the country to grow into what is can be, not enshrine current mores and factions - which I fear starting from scratch will do.

 

[twoton]

I'd rather start working with what we have. Even with some of the greatest political thinkers and statesmen of all time, it still took years of debate and study to get the basics down. The U.S. would never be able to accomplish a constitution today.

 

[Fred90]

I'd rather start working with what we have. Even with some of the greatest political thinkers and statesmen of all time, it still took years of debate and study to get the basics down. The U.S. would never be able to accomplish a constitution today.

Isn't that the truth!

 

[keenobserver]

I'd rather start working with what we have. Even with some of the greatest political thinkers and statesmen of all time, it still took years of debate and study to get the basics down. The U.S. would never be able to accomplish a constitution today.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

 

[SonyToyo]

Also: That's because when a Democrat loses the election, they also win the popular vote

Yes, because out of touch California and NY make up the majority of the democratic vote (especially in California, thanks to sanctuary)