Its a flaw in the design of US States. California is too big. Texas is too big. New York is too big.

And undoing the Great Compromise and handing effective control over those resources to urban populations is no sure guarantee of conservation of those resources.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

Going back to the beginning, it can be argued that many parts of the American Constitution - regarded by Americans with a reverence usually reserved for scripture and a document that is close to impossible to change in any meaningful way - are seriously flawed and promote neither responsible government nor democratic principles. The right-wing commentator and think-tank crowd always play up to the quasi-religious notion that the Constitution is the most perfect political document ever conceived. A disgraced, crooked, nasty right-wing politician, Tom DeLay of Texas, always bragged of having a copy folded in his pocket, almost like a priest carrying a bottle of holy water.

The Constitution's flaws leave little optimism for substantial political and policy change in the United States. It's as though all important political institutions were trapped in amber. Without changing the Constitution's flaws, it is hard to see how America's destructive policies at home and abroad can be altered. There are many such flaws, but I'll mention just a few.

One is the Electoral College. Many Americans do not understand that their vote for president technically does not count. The Electoral College, besides being remarkably anti-democratic, promotes corruption in elections with its winner-take-all provision in states. It is amazing that a country more than two centuries old and making great claims for democracy still can't hold honest national elections, both of George Bush's victories, but especially the first, being as dubious as something in an emerging nation.

.......

The designation of the President as commander-in-chief has proved an unfortunate provision with effects the founders never foresaw. Many Americans do not realize that it was the Parliament of Great Britain against which the early Patriots railed. They saw the British Parliament as acting without the beneficent King's full knowledge, understanding fully that the King's powers were already heavily curtailed by the evolution of British parliamentary government. The idea of the King as tyrant was built up later during the Revolutionary War as a propaganda device, and it has been played on by elementary text books since.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman09162006.html

my approach to this is pretty much the same than the authors above : you cannot have a document "established forever" that rules the "perfect" society model.

If it was so morons of the Bush type would be stopped at an early stage. And probably not in the future either. In the current situation "impeachment is not on the table" and you find yourself in the situation where a quasi dictator is OK but not oral games in the oval office as Doonesbury pictures it :

Another aspect is the role of the Supreme Court, which I think is unique in Western democracies. From previous studies on the matter I understand that already in the thirties FDR understood the negative role of the Supreme Court and tried to go around it. The debate at that time was packed (pun intended) of cartoons from Republican papers where FDR was portrayed attacking the Constitution. But his new approach created a pro-democrat court which resulted later in major overturns in US policies, specially in the after-war period like the Roe vs Wade story and the end of segregation. What I understand of that is that it created a "holiness" feeling among Dems which didn't understood that the system could be exactly used against them as Bush did these last years.

Ted Kennedy's address during the Alito nomination hearings was very clear : the Supreme Court rules what's most important for the US that's why only neat guys need to be appointed. But it's not my idea of democracy.

Regarding France, history has been different, probably because our "founding fathers" never sat in government, Lafayette never became the first president and because France had powerful enemies at its frontiers which the US didn't (it was rather the contrary). So democracy in France had its back and forth but it can be said that it prevailed since the foundation of the IIId Republic, with the exception of the Vichy years.

While the previous systems were more of parliamentary type, the Vth Republic is a semi-presidential system. It has shown its limits and it's probable that a future President will make changes to the constitution through a referendum and more balance will be given towards more parliamentary power. Another point is to strengthen the independence of the Judicial power in France.

I think it is a sound process, much more sound than constitution-thumping. But obviously it's very difficult to get acceptance for this idea in the US, as much it is difficult to make French unions understand that the "Code du Travail" could be revised...

The problem with the heavily weighted voice of the smaller states is a real problem.  Do you think this recent mid-term election demonstrates that it is not insurmountable?  Certainly smaller states are not likely to be willing to give up that relative power they have.  

Indeed ... the reasons we need a new Constitution are the very reasons that would corrupt an effort to reform the constitution.

And, indeed, the primary issue that Bill Maher raises, the argument that the equal protection clause extends to fictitious perons, is the precise kind of misinterpretation of the present Constitution that is highly likely to be written into any new Constitution.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

Sad to say I agree with you that it could end up worse, however, it really does need updating and clarifying, so that no monster abuses power again.

Just in the past 6 years the public may have developed a "fear" of asking for any changes seeing how badly all legal concepts have been diluted or even deleted.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

Yes, I'm afraid you're right. I'd still like to see thought given to what a better constitution would be like. One line of thought starts with comparative politics, and asks what has worked well elsewhere (a nice, conservative approach). A more radical approach would look at history and game theory, and examine new ideas. A conservative approach to new ideas, of course, would involve testing them at some level or place other than the U.S. federal government.

There might be advantages to a system in which no amount of money and effort would give anyone more than a small chance of winning an office -- the all-consuming struggle for power would be blunted, and it would automatically devalue incumbency.

A riddle for ET readers: How can this be done? (Hint -- there's already a name for the process.)

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

I agree, especially with the concept of less power in the hands of government being preferred to more.  Look at what happens when one party has control over both houses, the executive, and arguably a strong hand with the judicial. I also can't see a senate based on population.  That's why the house was devised with state population in mind to off-set the power of the senate.  Just because California is a large state with economic advantages, and considerable self-made problems as a result, is no reason to let it or any other populous state have a free reign.  My opinions about these issues are of course somewhat unrelated to the idea of another constitutional convention, but on that issue, I'm not sure the problems are as much with the constitution as with other causes.  After all, there have been 20 plus amendments, mostly with positive results, to keep the old lady up to date.

The oil leaks, in my opinion, can be blamed on situations other than the constitution. The problem with corporate power and irresponsibility is a problem that can be addressed by law within the framework of the current constitution, I suspect.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

That's where the concepts get apart...

for me the Roe Vs Wade story (and I don't mean the content of the ruling) is a typical example how it shouldn't go. For me judges shouldn't have any say in a story like that more than it's constitutional because nothing stands in the constitution that it's explicitly forbidden. They had to look into "penumbral rights" to "privacy" (there is no right to privacy in the US constitution) to grant a green light for at that time hot issue. And create jurispudence.. which opens to anything in the future.

Such an important issue as abortion cannot be left to judges. In Europe LAWS were voted first after debate. Which permitted an ethical debate and a precise regulation (to the difference from the US as it is seen as a private matter). Then a constitutional court can check with with collisions with other laws and clear up eventual details.

In the same way segregation was perfectly legal in the US until the sixties, until 9 judges or less found otherwise...

this is judiciocracy, not democracy

I think as I posted in my second post that Chuckman...

Many Americans do not realize that it was the Parliament of Great Britain against which the early Patriots railed. They saw the British Parliament as acting without the beneficent King's full knowledge, understanding fully that the King's powers were already heavily curtailed by the evolution of British parliamentary government. The idea of the King as tyrant was built up later during the Revolutionary War as a propaganda device, and it has been played on by elementary text books since.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman09162006.html

... is right : in the US the libertarian approach is fundamental despite all appearances. People don't want any "gunmint" : so they have a short document telling how things should be and 9 judges deciding...

The reason that the constitution has lasted so long is that the framers thought that posterity should be protected from people like themselves.

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is sort of like the EUROPEAN  UNION. International Federalist bodies.

If it wasn't for the equality of Representation of the States in the Senate, there wouldn't have been a constitution.

You may have better luck moving the whole population out of the country.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

Would that be such a bad thing, though, if the US ceased to exist?

One could argue that many of the problems in modern American politics come down to the fact that there are deep-seated cultural and social differences between the regions of the US, and that the various antagonisms created by such differences have been put to use by the wealthy and powerful to sell a faulty bill of goods.  Partition would take the wind out of the sails of this kind of politics, and allow a reorientation of "left" and "right" across the board.  After all, there is no obvious and logical connection between theocracy and corporatism - just look at Iran.