NationStates Jolt Archive

On NPR (http://wamu.org/programs/dr/)this morning they were interviewing Larry Sabato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sabato), political scientist and professor of...something. Politics, according to the Wikipedia article. The interview centered around Sabato's new book, where he proposed 23 changes to the Constitution and proposed a Constitutional Convention every 100 years, the first (or rather second) one occurring in the not-too-distant-future.
What do people here think? Does the Constitution need to be updated every 100 years? Or, barring that, are there any amendments that desperately need to be added? (Sabato's ideas are here (http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm).)

And yes, I do like hyperlinks (http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp).

Does the Constitution need to be updated every 100 years?

Yes. But I don't agree with the vast majority of Sabato's proposals.

Um no opposed to like 95% of what he is proposing.

The constitutional convention every 100 years is a good idea. New culture, new ideas and new technology. What was revolutionary then is outdated now so I think a new CC is in order.

Click Stand;13389019']The constitutional convention every 100 years is a good idea. New culture, new ideas and new technology. What was revolutionary then is outdated now so I think a new CC is in order.
I can think of a few ways the US constitution could well be amended - mostly extensions to the Bill of Rights - but I think it's managed to do a fantastic job despite social, political and economic changes since the eighteenth century. I've taken a look at his proposals, and can't say I really agree with them.

An interesting idea - does that mean that any states which choose not to sign on can remain self-governing?

i think a constitutional convention is a bad idea.

there are far too many very bad proposals out there and none that are better than what we have now.

An interesting idea - does that mean that any states which choose not to sign on can remain self-governing?
Very unlikely, from my reading of the constitution.

My god, those are all awful.

I only agreed with five (if that many) proposals of his. No dice.

I like most of his proposals. However, I think it's a really bad idea to have frequent, easy constitutional changes. People are nororiously short sighted. They'll forget the past 100 years for the events of yesterday. Imagine if we had a constitutional convention right after 9/11.

After reading his proposals, I don't agree with a number of them. One however stuck out:

The supreme court will consist of 12 judges.

WTF, that would mean they would be deadlocked on a number of issues, and probably never get anything done. We would need some sort of tie-breaking system, which would lengthen the process even longer.

On NPR (http://wamu.org/programs/dr/)this morning they were interviewing Larry Sabato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sabato), political scientist and professor of...something. Politics, according to the Wikipedia article. The interview centered around Sabato's new book, where he proposed 23 changes to the Constitution and proposed a Constitutional Convention every 100 years, the first (or rather second) one occurring in the not-too-distant-future.
What do people here think? Does the Constitution need to be updated every 100 years? Or, barring that, are there any amendments that desperately need to be added? (Sabato's ideas are here (http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm).)

And yes, I do like hyperlinks (http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp).

No, we don't need a constitutional convention every 100 years. The interpretations of the constitution should change with culture, but not the actual constitution itself, unless there is a real, serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Congress:
1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.[/quote]

No. This will give the favored states more power to exploit the less populous states. Also, with a political machine obscuring individual virtue in favor of devotion to parties, or even to meaningless tabloid gossip, the actions of one member of Congress will be even more obscured. Less populous states would find more resistance to their exploitations from more populous states due to their metric superiority, but more populous states exploiting would not face this barrier.

2. Appoint all former Presidents and Vice Presidents to the new office of “National Senator.”

No. They will simply give a platform for the particular interests they served while in office.

3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.

Who do you think is going to be doing the redistricting? Since it will be the incumbents who will legislate this, they will inevitably favor themselves as they do in any kind of campaign reform.

4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.

The House term extension isn't so bad, seeing as how it will allow the House members to have a broader time horizon (if they exploit now, they will not sacrifice just two but three years worth of possible increasing returns.) But since the Senate has its terms lessened it will have the opposite effect for them, and the coinciding elections for everyone will allow the political party machine enough white noise to push undesirable candidates through under the din of emotive partisanship.

5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.

This will only strengthen political party machinery as less emphasis is given upon what each politician can do and what he is recognized in general for doing, and coalitions (i.e. parties) gain strength.

6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.

This would narrow the time horizon, as every Representative and Senator would know what their limit is and will strive to exploit as much as possible before their opportunities end.

7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.

This does absolutely nothing to cut spending, and will merely increase the power of the state over every aspect of life.

8. Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for replacement Senators and Congresspeople in the event of extensive deaths or incapacitation.

I'd be curious to see how these replacements will be chosen; it'd probably be to the benefit of certain embedded interests.

Presidency:
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.

This would broaden the time horizon marginally, so it is better.

10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making.

They'll just hand it back over in exchange for the President letting them spend what they want, as this would be most in conformity with the political machine.

11. Give the President a line-item veto.

And watch it gather cobwebs.

12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years.

Sure thing. Nothing prevents foreigners from being as good a swindler, liar and sycophant as any American.

Supreme Court:
13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.

This will narrow the time-horizon, and cause them to abuse their privileges while they still have the chance.

14. Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.

Same thing as above.

15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.

The point of a court isn't to be 'representative.' It is to render each their due, i.e. to be just. Of course, this would give particular interests about three more chances to bend the state to their side, and that is another reason I disapprove of this amendment. (Also, when these three seats are just opened, it will be a perfect opportunity for court packing.)

16. Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.

More likely than not these pay increases will be rather generous, and just another rising expense among many for taxpayers.

Politics:
17. Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.

I suppose that this amendment is continued below.

18. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over 4 months, for Presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.

I don't think that this changes anything. Primaries are so controlled by the dominant interests in the political machinery that this will not change anything. Plus, taking away the ability of small states like Iowa and New Hampshire to set their primaries earlier than the more populous states will simply open them to exploitation by the more populous states.

19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.

This will simply take away the defenses of less populous states from more populous states.

20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.

This will weaken non-incumbents, in that they will have to face the name recognition and path dependency of the incumbent without the help of their money. Public financing will inevitably help out incumbents, since they will be the ones making the rules, giving them an edge against their contender.

21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.

I'd actually prefer that the people who couldn't get off their asses to register not be registered at all.

Universal National Service:
22. Create a Constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least 2 years of their lives in service to the country.

I despise the idea of universal national service. The Federal government is ultimately is out, like any individual, for their own particular interest, and there is nothing more noble in serving them than there is in serving oneself or others. (In fact, with all the civil rights trashing, warring, and backroom deals they do, it is probably less noble to serve them.) This will simply give the government more of a chance to give their allies political favors, and nothing more.

National Constitutional Convention:
23. Convene a new Constitutional Convention using the state-based mechanism left to us by the Framers in the current Constitution.

If I have to make the choice I would rather the Constitution stay relatively constant, instead of being open to alteration for the benefit of a political elite, no matter who they are. Constantly changing laws, which are the mainstay of the Federal government, breed chaos.

I must entirely agree. I see none of these proposals as being an advance for the nation.

Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.
This guy is a fucking retard. Just for holding this position, no one should let him be a professor of politics. I bet this jackass has tenure. "Hmm, hey, I don't like odd numbers, let's make the court even!" NO. It's fucking odd so the outcome is definitive. 6-6 is not a damned definitive decision.

Not a bad idea to call a convention every now and then.

And now to his points:
Congress:
1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.
No, that's retarded. That's what the House of Reps is for. Although giving DC a senator is good.

2. Appoint all former Presidents and Vice Presidents to the new office of “National Senator.”
Why?

3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.
No. How about this new invention called PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.
This makes no sense. Senate terms would have to be 4 or 8 years then. I don't get how the 3 part works out since Presidential elections are every 4.

5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.
See 3 and I do agree the House should be expanded to like 750ish.

6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.
Hell no. If you want term limits, vote AGAINST the incumbent. Wow, people are stupid.

7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.
That I'll take.

8. Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for replacement Senators and Congresspeople in the event of extensive deaths or incapacitation.[/QUOTE]
This I'll take too. I don't get how we can have vacant seats. There should never be vacant seats.


Presidency:
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.
Oh hell no. 4 or 5 year terms thank you and without term limits. This guy is insane.

10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making.
I'll take this.

11. Give the President a line-item veto.
I'm still not sure about this idea. It seems like a good idea to reduce bureaucracy, but it's too risky IMO.

12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years.
I'll take that.


Supreme Court:
13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.
No, if you want them out, impeach them.

14. Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.
No.

15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.
Ok...and actually the even number forces compromise and concessions.

16. Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.
Ok


Politics:
17. Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.
Uh...why?

18. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over 4 months, for Presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.
This is ok with one change. Have a water testing by having one state in each reagion vote first before the rest begins to see how things are going and knock off one or two unviable candidates. I'd prefer several stages in a primary based on one state from each region.

19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.
How about we just ditch this anachronism which no longer does what it was intended to do?

20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.
I think a matching fund would work better because how can the government decide who does and does not get funding. You'd have everyone running and waste loads of money.

21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.
Only if it does not violate privacy rights.


Universal National Service:
22. Create a Constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least 2 years of their lives in service to the country.
I'll take that. If combined with a decrease in warmongering, I have no problem whatsoever.


National Constitutional Convention:
23. Convene a new Constitutional Convention using the state-based mechanism left to us by the Framers in the current Constitution.
...?

I like 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 22. Other than that, this guy is a crackpot.

Bad idea!

We can have a convention anytime we want. Have one for the sake of having one is a terrible idea.

Most of the items are foolish at best.

Let's see. Would it be a good idea to change the constitution on every/any political, ideological or mass media whims? um... NO WAY! Nuts!

In agreement, these will not do anything to better the country, and the only one I could marginally support (allowing citizens who have been citizens for 20 years or more to be president) I don't think goes far enough.

I'm joining the chorus of people against this idea. Although I am a proud member of the "Constitution as living document" club, I see no reason to put it up for automatic review without need. We have a perfectly good amendment system in place already.

As for Sabato's specific suggestions, I am in favor of people who have been citizens for at least 20 years being able to become President, but that's about it. I see no reason for any of the others, and strong reasons against some of them.

Let's see. Would it be a good idea to change the constitution on every/any political, ideological or mass media whims? um... NO WAY!

But is it a good idea to freeze one generation's "political, ideological or mass media whims" for eternity? Not particularly.

As for Sabato's specific suggestions, I am in favor of people who have been citizens for at least 20 years being able to become President, but that's about it. I see no reason for any of the others, and strong reasons against some of them.

As I said, that's the only one I have mild support for, and only mild because I don't think it's far enough.

Increase the size of the Senate by 36 members and more than double the size of the House? Have a lame duck president elected every six years? This guy is out of his mind. I agree with four of his proposals.

And they are:
3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.
6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.
7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.
11. Give the President a line-item veto.

But is it a good idea to freeze one generation's "political, ideological or mass media whims" for eternity? Not particularly.

Of course not. That's why we can amend the constitution.

And they are:
3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.

While I agree with this, in principle, the House is supposed to be representative. How you define "non partisan" in a meaningful way, and still accept that some districts will favor one party over the other.

6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.

Meh, I disagree with term limits in general in a democratic system (except, perhaps, for a presidential position). If people want their representative to represent them, then let them. That's democracy.

7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.

Impractical at best, worthless at worst

11. Give the President a line-item veto.

I prefer the power of legislation to remain with the legislature.

I'm joining the chorus of people against this idea. Although I am a proud member of the "Constitution as living document" club, I see no reason to put it up for automatic review without need. We have a perfectly good amendment system in place already.

Those are my sentiments, more or less. I think it would be good to treat the Constitution a little less reverently, and be more willing to change it. But setting a schedule is unnecessary.

Why?
In his interview, Sabato cited the president's experience as an useful asset. I actually agree with this point here. At worse, it will just give ex-presidents another ceremonial title.

This makes no sense. Senate terms would have to be 4 or 8 years then. I don't get how the 3 part works out since Presidential elections are every 4.
As he says later, the president serves a six year term. I support giving representatives a longer term, only because it means they don't have to dedicate such a large percentage of their term to campaigning.

I'm still not sure about this idea. It seems like a good idea to reduce bureaucracy, but it's too risky IMO.
I agree. Someone, I think Neo Art, mentioned keeping the power of the legislature with the legislature. "Power of the purse" is one of Congress's biggest political checks, and I don't want to see it leave. However, it would certainly be more efficient. If it could be made both efficient and democratic, I would want it.

Ok...and actually the even number forces compromise and concessions.
The number started out even anyway, I believe. It hasn't been constant.


Uh...why?
Keep in mind two things:

Sabato studies political science.
Sabato has a new book out which explains all of this in more detail.

Can you see why he might not want to reveal everything? :)
Universal National Service:

I'll take that. If combined with a decrease in warmongering, I have no problem whatsoever.
Sabato also said that "national service" is not necessarily military service. I completely support something that will make people more involved in the government, even if it forced.


I like 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 22. Other than that, this guy is a crackpot.
I feel like I need to defend Sabato because I first heard of him outside of this interview and have read less...eccentric writings of his. He's actually fairly well respected, one of the most quoted political pundits (although that may have more to do with his willingness to talk to reporters than his talent). He also puts out the "Crystal Ball" newsletter. [/Shameless promotion]

Ok...and actually the even number forces compromise and concessions.
You confuse judges for people who give a fuck. They rule their opinion, the end. There is no pussy-footing around compromise and concession. This isn't some fucking negotiating table. In fact, you confuse politicians in general with people who give a fuck.

Of course not. That's why we can amend the constitution.

From a default established by a small elite group of people two centuries ago, much of which remains more or less unchanged.

I see no convincing reason why, if it was legitimate to have a constitutional convention then, it's not legitimate for us to have one now.

Ok...and actually the even number forces compromise and concessions.

Which, for a judicial system, is a very bad thing. Judges should not "make compromises". Judges should not "make concessions". The job of a judge is to rule based on his/her interpretation of the law. They're not the legislature who make the laws, where concession is important, and finding a middle ground is the way to be productive. The job of a judge is to interpret the laws, and a judge should rule only on his/her interpretation of the law.

To compromise his position, to concede on a point, means that while the panel of judges may rule in a "common ground" fashion, this is absolutly, totally, not the job of the judge. A judge needs to rule on his/her opinion of the law, nothing else

From a default established by a small elite group of people two centuries ago, much of which remains more or less unchanged.

If it has "remained more or less unchainged" then that's because the necessary number of legislatures have not sought fit to change it. I'm unsure what you're complaint is. If enough people want it changed, it iwll be changed. If it hasn't been changed, then people, by and large, have not sought fit to change it.

I see no convincing reason why, if it was legitimate to have a constitutional convention then, it's not legitimate for us to have one now.

Certainly, let them have one. Let them all gather up any time they want to.

If it has "remained more or less unchainged" then that's because the necessary number of legislatures have not sought fit to change it.

Well, yes. Because no one cares enough. Not because it's the best system.

That's exactly why having regular (as in, every century) constitutional conventions is a good idea. You can improve things without having to do it through a political system that is (rightfully) more concerned with other issues.

Keep in mind two things:

Sabato studies political science.
Sabato has a new book out which explains all of this in more detail.

Can you see why he might not want to reveal everything? :)
Still, it is redundant and stupid for the Constitution to say what politics is and how it works.

Sabato also said that "national service" is not necessarily military service. I completely support something that will make people more involved in the government, even if it forced.
Either works. Conscription is better so everyone is prepared to mobilize in an emergency.

I feel like I need to defend Sabato because I first heard of him outside of this interview and have read less...eccentric writings of his. He's actually fairly well respected, one of the most quoted political pundits (although that may have more to do with his willingness to talk to reporters than his talent). He also puts out the "Crystal Ball" newsletter. [/Shameless promotion]
Still, he has some whacked out ideas.

You confuse judges for people who give a fuck. They rule their opinion, the end. There is no pussy-footing around compromise and concession. This isn't some fucking negotiating table. In fact, you confuse politicians in general with people who give a fuck.
Which, for a judicial system, is a very bad thing. Judges should not "make compromises". Judges should not "make concessions". The job of a judge is to rule based on his/her interpretation of the law. They're not the legislature who make the laws, where concession is important, and finding a middle ground is the way to be productive. The job of a judge is to interpret the laws, and a judge should rule only on his/her interpretation of the law.

To compromise his position, to concede on a point, means that while the panel of judges may rule in a "common ground" fashion, this is absolutly, totally, not the job of the judge. A judge needs to rule on his/her opinion of the law, nothing else

A majority opinion is just what the majority thinks. Having an even number forces them to think more about the consequences because going one way or another could end up in a tie.

Does the Constitution need to be updated every 100 years?

it needs to be updated much more frequently than that, even going at our current rate. but yeah, setting up an automatic option for a complete rewrite, such that even if people are ok with the current document it must be actively affirmed every so often is obviously a good idea. 100 years might be a bit too much of a wait for it actually.

Which, for a judicial system, is a very bad thing. Judges should not "make compromises". Judges should not "make concessions". The job of a judge is to rule based on his/her interpretation of the law. They're not the legislature who make the laws, where concession is important, and finding a middle ground is the way to be productive. The job of a judge is to interpret the laws, and a judge should rule only on his/her interpretation of the law.

To compromise his position, to concede on a point, means that while the panel of judges may rule in a "common ground" fashion, this is absolutly, totally, not the job of the judge. A judge needs to rule on his/her opinion of the law, nothing else
I'm not so sure. At least at the Supreme Court level, the justices are supposed to apply the Constitution to the current state of the nation. In theory, then, rulings should always be unanimous. The justices would all agree on the "correct" interpretation.
This, of course, never happens. It is impossible for justices to ignore their own personal beliefs and be completely objective. But an even number may force some to reconsider their positions. Imagine if in 2000, there was a fifth liberal on the Court. Would Bush have won the case? Maybe, but if he did it would be because at least one justice voted against party lines. If there were an even number, there should probably be some sort of way to resolve it, either with Congress, the President, or the states.

The fuzziness of the whole thing is a reason I support more amendments. Statuary law is almost always more democratic, and while a panel of "wise men" is useful, I would prefer the opinion of American voters to that of Antonin Scalia.