Synchronicity: Guns, Insurance and a Cultural Revolution
Maiello: What Marcus and Brookings Don't Get
Ginsberg: Hillary, the TPP, and Me
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.