MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Just based on conversations I've had over the years, one of the assumed best things about the enduring democracy of the United States is that we've had one Constitution, amended infrequently, for a very long time. Other countries, we're told, go through constitutions quite frequently and others don't have them at all. Today, Louis Michael Seidman writes in The Times that we should give up on the Constitution all together. It has become, he argues, an impediment to smart decision-making and an appeal to a long departed gentry who would not understand the problems we face today.
Seidman argues that giving up the Constitution doesn't mean giving up the traditions of laws and society that we've always lived with. It is not, he says, the only thing that stands between us and Hobbesian chaos.
Getting rid of the Constitution would allow for us to change some pretty stupid things. One that Seidman points out is the notion that spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Isn't that a needless custom at this point.
I'm sure many of you would write the Second Amendment away, or would at least clarify it. It's tempting for me to use this post to write my own, ideal constitution. But that seems self indulgent and could potentially bore you all. Besides, I'd love to see what a Dag Constitutional Convention would come up with.
If we did scrap the Constitution to begin anew, what would you keep, what would you change and what would you add?
Opine, if you have a moment. And Happy New Year.
Comments
I would keep the parts that protect the ability of the minority, from attacks from the majority.
by Resistance on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:45am
That's a smart statement of principle. Where does it take you? What do you keep in that regard? And... what do you add?
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:46am
For starters; keep intact the Bill of Rights.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
by Resistance on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:03pm
Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution be rewritten every 19 years to keep a previous generation from burdening the next with possibly outdated laws.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:52am
Do you have the entire discussion by Jefferson, that you rely on for a particular quote?
Please provide us the occasion. So we all can see, whether their is a bias, or a selective reading, so that reasonable men, might determine whether the words of Jefferson were taken out of context?
by Resistance on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 12:11pm
Compilation of Jefferson on topic by "student of life" at Newsvine (my bold):
by artappraiser on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 1:10pm
NCD, Dec. 31, 2012:
I would rather be burdened by law writ by the dead, than swindled, deceived or misused by those writ by the living, who have the advantage of benefiting from the fruits of their subterfuge.
Seriously though, I think a parliamentary system, where an election gives full legislative and executive power to one party is the best form of democracy, as is used in Canada, Australia and England. It is then clear who is in power, and whichever party is, has the means to carry out it's programs.
A huge problem we have is too many voters have no idea of what is going on in government, many don't know which Party controls the House or Senate.
Effort is wasted by politicians and the media in spinning what's going on to confuse/obfuscate viewers, KOS now has a FOX News byline that says the House is 'unable' to act until the Senate passes a budget Bill, which is pure BS.
The 2 parties try to shirk responsibility for failures, and claim credit for successes. Voters do know who is President, and the President should have a House and a Senate run by his Party.
Divided control of executive/legislative branches creates inefficient government, that is unable to act promptly or often at all. This more than anything is a major defect in our Constitution.
by NCD on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 6:03pm
The problem is that if you throw the bloody thing out the forces of evil with a trillion dollars in the ready will really screw us.
Corporations would be people people and those without property could not vote and...
Some folks don't like the Senate.
States with half a million in population get two senators and so does NY with 32 times that number.
However, our history is one of states.
Leave my Minnesota alone for chrissakes.
by Richard Day on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 3:22pm
But, hey... could do one of two things:
We recognize corporations as people. As such, no corpirate charter may exist for longer than the average lifespan of an American citizen at its time of incorporation. If they are people, we make them mortal.
Or, we could flat out say that while all inidividuals may freely assemble, no assembly may make legal claim to personhood.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 4:06pm
I would add a rule or write a law or amend the Constitution, whatever it takes, so that there is one clear issue on any bill voted on by Congress. The current system allows "riders", provisions that probably couldn't become law on their own but that might be able to ride to success on the back of unrelated legislation that is already on its way to enactment.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 4:05pm
I believe that the Constitution has been modified many times over the past two hundred plus years and for the most part it has been modified for the better. Have we had setbacks, for sure, but inevitably we march toward universal justice and equality and making the world a better place.
Boehner for some reason has abdicated his constitutionally mandated responsibility that these bills originate in the house. I don't think the rules need to be changed because the guy who is in charge is the weakest Speaker of the House in the history of the United States of America. He is weak and ineffectual, he is a broken man, he will be lucky if he holds on to his position, if he does he will be even weaker than he is currently, which means we can expect more of the same or worse. The Constitution isn't holding us hostage, idiots are holding us hostage to their crazy rage over losing the last election. Are these dudes ever going to be forced to GTFOIA and move on and get some work done without each dramatic "but we caaaaaaaaaan't" and take the country to the edge and then agree to what they have to agree to anyway. WTF?
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:24pm
If you’re going to consider a New Constitution, consider this.
“Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience”.
“Alexander Hamilton,
The Farmer Refuted 23 Feb. 1775 Papers 1:86--89, 121--22, 135--36, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett et al. 26 vols. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961--79
by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 10:34pm
i had a very similar discussion with an Attorney friend of mine a couple of years ago. in fact i bought the url www.theusconstitutionisobsolete.com. i have since let it expire since i never created anything.
i don't know if i would do away with it, but more probably update it to take current societal norms and especially technology into account.
the first amendment needs updating due to technology. right to privacy should be clarified;especially to end the endless debate on roe v wade.
Second amendment - is it a right for purpose of militia? (obsolete) or individual? Square this baby away.
Fourteenth amendment - this has been so overused to justify practically anything when it was meant to insure rights to former slaves.
How about term limits, Gerrymandering, unlimited money in political campaigns stemming from freedom of speech.
OK, my lunch hour is over!
by John Perri (not verified) on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 12:34pm
Oh....and state's rights have been obliterated by the Fed always dangling the purse strings to get what they want. Need to fix that!
by John Perri (not verified) on Fri, 01/04/2013 - 12:36pm