Amend the Constitution?
November 29, 2022 7:36 PM Subscribe
Recently, the National Constitution Center assembled three teams of legal scholars to draw up their ideal constitutional revisions. After the libertarian, conservative and progressive groups released their proposals, organizers noticed several areas of possible agreement and invited them to reconvene, this time not divided in teams. They compromised on five amendments: eliminating the natural born citizen requirement for President, allowing a legislative veto, strengthening Presidential appointment power and applying term limits to the Supreme Court and lastly making future amendments easier. (video) So is it possible that change could come to this founding document or will discussion remain trapped in the ivory tower?
Further context:
Democracy Journal brought together a large group of academics to propose a progressive wishlist.
Washington Monthly published an intriguing proposal to neuter the Senate.
This Substack post offers a novel and intriguing way to reshape the legislative branch.
Former Senator Russ Feingold, is much less sanguine about the idea of rewriting the Constitution.
Further context:
Democracy Journal brought together a large group of academics to propose a progressive wishlist.
Washington Monthly published an intriguing proposal to neuter the Senate.
This Substack post offers a novel and intriguing way to reshape the legislative branch.
Former Senator Russ Feingold, is much less sanguine about the idea of rewriting the Constitution.
the 'five amendment' should have PDF warning like past chairman's of the NCC
John C. Boglle 1999–2007
George H. W. Bush 2007–2009
Bill Clinton 2009–2012
Jeb Bush 2013–2017
Joe Biden 2017–2019
Neil Gorsuch 2019–
Follow the 7 trillion dollars.
posted by clavdivs at 8:03 PM on November 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
John C. Boglle 1999–2007
George H. W. Bush 2007–2009
Bill Clinton 2009–2012
Jeb Bush 2013–2017
Joe Biden 2017–2019
Neil Gorsuch 2019–
Follow the 7 trillion dollars.
posted by clavdivs at 8:03 PM on November 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Amendments I'd really love to see for our constitution:
Unicameral system, if it's good enough for Nebraska it's good enough for the country. No more senates.
House agenda setter now directly elected by majority vote by the country as a whole, former position of majority leader eliminated.
Ostracism, any politician can be removed from office. If you send a sucky person to the Federal government, the rest of the country can send them back. This also means we don't depend on impeachment to remove presidents or executive appointees.
Federal ability to add laws by popular vote.
Legislative branch can create and run its own regulatory departments, but can't have a department that duplicates ones under Executive control.
Oh, and of course getting rid of the electoral college.
As a whole, I feel like a lot of our dysfunction is a result of the legislative branch failing to accomplish things and these are mostly intended to ameliorate that. Much of the problems we have with the Supreme Court are a result of congress failing to make meaningful laws and letting the Supreme Court do whatever. And we really have given way too much power to POTUS. Hopefully a more functional legislature would fix these problems.
posted by ockmockbock at 8:32 PM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Unicameral system, if it's good enough for Nebraska it's good enough for the country. No more senates.
House agenda setter now directly elected by majority vote by the country as a whole, former position of majority leader eliminated.
Ostracism, any politician can be removed from office. If you send a sucky person to the Federal government, the rest of the country can send them back. This also means we don't depend on impeachment to remove presidents or executive appointees.
Federal ability to add laws by popular vote.
Legislative branch can create and run its own regulatory departments, but can't have a department that duplicates ones under Executive control.
Oh, and of course getting rid of the electoral college.
As a whole, I feel like a lot of our dysfunction is a result of the legislative branch failing to accomplish things and these are mostly intended to ameliorate that. Much of the problems we have with the Supreme Court are a result of congress failing to make meaningful laws and letting the Supreme Court do whatever. And we really have given way too much power to POTUS. Hopefully a more functional legislature would fix these problems.
posted by ockmockbock at 8:32 PM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Is there a version of the five amendments link that’s readable on an iPhone?
posted by panama joe at 8:47 PM on November 29, 2022
posted by panama joe at 8:47 PM on November 29, 2022
Here in NZ the governing coalition (usually) represents a majority in our (single) house. AS such they get to control the laws that the house considers.
We do however have a novel parliamentary mechanism called "the biscuit tin" - and actual physical biscuit tin into which any MP can place a proposal for a law, and from which periodically bills are drawn by lot for the house's consideration bypassing any gatekeeping.
posted by mbo at 9:25 PM on November 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
We do however have a novel parliamentary mechanism called "the biscuit tin" - and actual physical biscuit tin into which any MP can place a proposal for a law, and from which periodically bills are drawn by lot for the house's consideration bypassing any gatekeeping.
posted by mbo at 9:25 PM on November 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
What kind of biscuits?
Everyone is automatically registered to vote and elections are on a public holiday.
And I don't care how you do it, dark money needs to go. It's just bribery. Make bribery illegal gain.
posted by adept256 at 9:37 PM on November 29, 2022 [16 favorites]
Everyone is automatically registered to vote and elections are on a public holiday.
And I don't care how you do it, dark money needs to go. It's just bribery. Make bribery illegal gain.
posted by adept256 at 9:37 PM on November 29, 2022 [16 favorites]
I'm frustrated, but not surprised, that the libertarians were the only ones to get their narrow and unworldly perspective respected by this thing. Why not the rest? I'd love to see a separate green, labour, and socialist amendment plans to represent the progressive side. Conservatives already got their libertarian side out to be double-counted so how about the fundamentalists and the plutocrats? Not that I'd like what they'd have to say but I'd love what it would reveal about the unholy coalition that party is.
And while we're dreaming about personal changes, I want a parliamentary system. The "separation of powers" has demonstrated its insurmountable weaknesses. The President is the same person as the Speaker of the House now and not separately elected. Congress is unicameral, House only, and expanded many times over in membership to better approach "one person, one vote".
posted by traveler_ at 9:45 PM on November 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
And while we're dreaming about personal changes, I want a parliamentary system. The "separation of powers" has demonstrated its insurmountable weaknesses. The President is the same person as the Speaker of the House now and not separately elected. Congress is unicameral, House only, and expanded many times over in membership to better approach "one person, one vote".
posted by traveler_ at 9:45 PM on November 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
I have a harder time imagining a scenario where major amendments make it into the Constitution than one in which some states simply decide to disregard the federal government's authority to enforce their interpretation of the Constitution. But I hope not. There's a quasi-religious aspect to the authority accorded to the Constitution by Americans, at least as interpreted by their party/state/faith. I wonder if anyone's analyzed the lineage of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura, the subsequent fetishizing of both the Bible as infallible text and the individual's subjective belief in their personal relationship with Jesus as infallible interpreter, to modern right-wing political/legal theories like Constitutional originalism and the sovereign citizen movement. That'd be an interesting read.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:51 PM on November 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:51 PM on November 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
Is this where we post our crazy pie-in-the-sky wishes for constitutional changes? Because if so I'm here for it.
posted by biogeo at 10:07 PM on November 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
- Voting rules: winner-take-all voting is banned. States or localities may opt for approval, ranked-choice, or other scientifically and mathematically valid voting systems.
- Senate: replaced by a representative body with members representing 80,000-120,000 people each. Yes, this means there will be over 3000 senators/representatives; that is a good thing to limit their power. Senator terms are shortened to 4 years, and senators are limited to 2 terms.
- Citizens Assemblies: The House is replaced by citizens' assemblies, functioning similar to juries but for legislation. Any citizen may be summoned for legislative duty similar to jury duty, and subject to a process similar to voir dire by a panel of senators. Each assembly is concerned with a single piece of legislation, and each major piece of legislation must be passed or rejected by an assembly. Either passing or rejecting legislation requires a consensus vote (exact number to be determined, 2/3 consensus is a reasonable starting point), and each assembly is required to remain in session until either consensus is reached or it is determined that no consensus is possible in this assembly, in which case a new assembly is called to start over. The Senate appoints legislative assistants to educate and guide citizens in assemblies, similar to the role of a judge in a jury trial. Senators propose legislation, call assemblies when drafts are passed, and debate merits in front of the assembly, but do not get to participate in the assembly's deliberation.
- Supreme Court: number of justices is pegged to population, and justices' terms are limited. The principle of judicial review is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, not just case law.
- Executive branch: Cabinet members are directly elected. The presidency is currently much too powerful and the risk of fascism is too high. The electoral college is abolished.
- Tribal Equality: American Indian tribes are recognized as co-equal governments, with US Government treaty obligations required to be upheld. A plan for reparations for genocide and treaty violations is included.
- Second Bill of Rights: explicitly enshrining bodily autonomy, the full text of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal protection based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. The 2nd Amendment is repealed.
- Equal Representation: Washington, DC is a state for the purposes of congressional representation. Puerto Rico and other territories are automatically granted statehood if and when they vote for it, and are preemptively granted voting representation in congress until then.
- Clarifying the obvious: Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.
- Corporations must become cooperatives: The number of non-owner employees and contractors a corporation may engage is limited, say 150 maximum. If a corporation wishes to grow beyond that size, it must do so by adding owner-employees, as a cooperative. Authoritarianism is a poison at all levels of society, and America should only recognize large businesses that are themselves democracies.
posted by biogeo at 10:07 PM on November 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
Former Senator Russ Feingold, is much less sanguine about the idea of rewriting the Constitution.
So the question of a constitutional convention came up on an interview style podcast I listen to and the (admittedly Libertarian) guest strongly recommended against another convention, on the basis that any convention would likely not follow the law, citing the US Constitution's own past:
He goes on to point out that all the things we all hate about modern politics don't go away either -- all the bribes and backroom deals still exist. Do we need another closed door convention in a world where Elon Musk can burn 40 billion by accident? Seems much better to use the front door than the emergency hatch.
posted by pwnguin at 10:12 PM on November 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
So the question of a constitutional convention came up on an interview style podcast I listen to and the (admittedly Libertarian) guest strongly recommended against another convention, on the basis that any convention would likely not follow the law, citing the US Constitution's own past:
And so, they went to Philadelphia to have a meeting about solving those problems. And, they said, 'You know, let's write a constitution.' So, they closed all the windows--even though it was really hot--because the Articles of Confederation said, 'You need 13 out of 13. You need Wicksellian, unanimous consent.'
And this bunch--some states didn't even send delegates. This bunch of guys said, 'I'll tell you what. We need nine out 13.' It's unconstitutional! The Constitution is literally unconstitutional because it was ratified using a nine-out-of-13 rule when the existing Constitution--the Articles of Confederation--required 13 out of 13.
So, that will happen again. If you say, 'You guys go off by yourselves and make up a bunch of rules,' they're going to do it, but they're not going to use the existing rules as the status quo that bind their decisions. They're just going to come up with a bunch of rules. We got so lucky.
He goes on to point out that all the things we all hate about modern politics don't go away either -- all the bribes and backroom deals still exist. Do we need another closed door convention in a world where Elon Musk can burn 40 billion by accident? Seems much better to use the front door than the emergency hatch.
posted by pwnguin at 10:12 PM on November 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'd like to see an amendment (among many others) that makes Congress just one house, whose members all represent districts of equal populations without gerrymandering.
posted by mikeand1 at 11:14 PM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by mikeand1 at 11:14 PM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I’m in favor of the natural-born citizen requirement for President, if only as a bulwark against more nefarious Manchurian candidates than we’ve already had.
posted by khrusanthemon at 11:43 PM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by khrusanthemon at 11:43 PM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Call me some kind of anti-federalist or Whig or something, but I have questions for the 'eliminate the Senate' crowd.
The existence of a forum where each of the states are treated as equal peers was/is kind of an important component of the whole setup.
When you eliminate the Senate, you effectively reconceptualize the thing from a federal union into the singular State of America.
I hear the arguments that 'land doesn't vote, people do'. But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
The situation in the early days would have been Massachusetts and Virginia. Nowadays, the 'highest population wins' would mean that California, Texas, New York and Florida tell the whole country how it's going to be. Those loser nobodies in Vermont and Nebraska can go fuck themselves.
But I don't hear people following 'the Senate is un-democratic' through to 'let's get rid of the States while we're at it'. Compared to the opinions of twenty million New Yorkers, two million New Mexicans might as well shut up and do as they're told.
posted by bartleby at 1:22 AM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
The existence of a forum where each of the states are treated as equal peers was/is kind of an important component of the whole setup.
When you eliminate the Senate, you effectively reconceptualize the thing from a federal union into the singular State of America.
I hear the arguments that 'land doesn't vote, people do'. But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
The situation in the early days would have been Massachusetts and Virginia. Nowadays, the 'highest population wins' would mean that California, Texas, New York and Florida tell the whole country how it's going to be. Those loser nobodies in Vermont and Nebraska can go fuck themselves.
But I don't hear people following 'the Senate is un-democratic' through to 'let's get rid of the States while we're at it'. Compared to the opinions of twenty million New Yorkers, two million New Mexicans might as well shut up and do as they're told.
posted by bartleby at 1:22 AM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
The situation in the early days would have been Massachusetts and Virginia. Nowadays, the 'highest population wins' would mean that California, Texas, New York and Florida tell the whole country how it's going to be. Those loser nobodies in Vermont and Nebraska can go fuck themselves.This is a very solid point, and something I've been struggling with over the years, let's say vis-a-vis gun rights : I have relatives in rural areas that feel better served by their own arsenal than waiting 2 hours for anyone to help. But, like, a heavily populated urban shopping center? You don't need to carry that 9mm.
But I don't hear people following 'the Senate is un-democratic' through to 'let's get rid of the States while we're at it'. Compared to the opinions of twenty million New Yorkers, two million New Mexicans might as well shut up and do as they're told.
posted by revmitcz at 2:24 AM on November 30, 2022
The existence of a forum where each of the states are treated as equal peers was/is kind of an important component of the whole setup.
We don't live in the setup, we live in the it's-already-set-up.
When you eliminate the Senate, you effectively reconceptualize the thing from a federal union into the singular State of America.
Eliminating or neutering the Senate doesn't make federalism go away. Alabama and Massachusetts still get to do different things and have different laws.
I hear the arguments that 'land doesn't vote, people do'. But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
If everyone counts the same, then that's absolutely a possibility if enough people choose to live in those two clusters, and it's absolutely fine. If we're going to have some people count more than others for some reason, there are way better ways to do that than just rural people.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:54 AM on November 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
We don't live in the setup, we live in the it's-already-set-up.
When you eliminate the Senate, you effectively reconceptualize the thing from a federal union into the singular State of America.
Eliminating or neutering the Senate doesn't make federalism go away. Alabama and Massachusetts still get to do different things and have different laws.
I hear the arguments that 'land doesn't vote, people do'. But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
If everyone counts the same, then that's absolutely a possibility if enough people choose to live in those two clusters, and it's absolutely fine. If we're going to have some people count more than others for some reason, there are way better ways to do that than just rural people.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:54 AM on November 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
I hear the arguments that 'land doesn't vote, people do'. But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
What of it? Democracy means everyone gets one vote regardless of other factors. If you’re going to start adding weight to people’s vote based on the fact that they belong to a minority of the population — well, I can think of a lot of minority classifications you should start with before "geography."
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:12 AM on November 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
What of it? Democracy means everyone gets one vote regardless of other factors. If you’re going to start adding weight to people’s vote based on the fact that they belong to a minority of the population — well, I can think of a lot of minority classifications you should start with before "geography."
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:12 AM on November 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
Myself I would favor something like
(1) Every adult citizen has the absolute right to vote wherever they spend the most time.
(2) Nobody can win any elected office and no ballot proposition can pass without a positive vote from a majority of adult citizens
(3) If anyone can demonstrate that they had to wait more than 15 minutes to vote on election day, everyone in the state legislature and all statewide elected officials are removed from office. 30 minutes, they all go to prison until the next regularly scheduled election for their office. An hour, they all get executed or imprisoned forever depending on the legality of the death penalty in that state.
(4) House elections and any districted body with statewide authority have to use bundestag-style elections where you vote for a representative and a party and more seats get filled by party lists to bring the chamber into proportion.
And more stuff, but that's a start.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:18 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
(1) Every adult citizen has the absolute right to vote wherever they spend the most time.
(2) Nobody can win any elected office and no ballot proposition can pass without a positive vote from a majority of adult citizens
(3) If anyone can demonstrate that they had to wait more than 15 minutes to vote on election day, everyone in the state legislature and all statewide elected officials are removed from office. 30 minutes, they all go to prison until the next regularly scheduled election for their office. An hour, they all get executed or imprisoned forever depending on the legality of the death penalty in that state.
(4) House elections and any districted body with statewide authority have to use bundestag-style elections where you vote for a representative and a party and more seats get filled by party lists to bring the chamber into proportion.
And more stuff, but that's a start.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:18 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I've been recommending fixed terms for the Supreme Court for a long time. Lifetime appointment adds unnecessary chaos to the system.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 4:24 AM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 4:24 AM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
I think the simple majority legislative veto is power grab of huge proportions. A veto gives a hostile Congress the ability to stop the executive branch dead.
I agree that the executive branch has taken a lot more on itself than was intended (and probably than is good) but all of the decisions the executive branch makes are revisited with a vengeance every time a new officeholder arrives. Congress already holds significant long term power by holding the purse strings — the only time they should be intervening should be in truly egregious situations.
Trump can have his wall and Biden can have his loan forgiveness if they can find a way to pay for them. It’s the cost of having a vital executive. 3/5ths or even 2/3rds should be required for any legislative veto.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:34 AM on November 30, 2022
I agree that the executive branch has taken a lot more on itself than was intended (and probably than is good) but all of the decisions the executive branch makes are revisited with a vengeance every time a new officeholder arrives. Congress already holds significant long term power by holding the purse strings — the only time they should be intervening should be in truly egregious situations.
Trump can have his wall and Biden can have his loan forgiveness if they can find a way to pay for them. It’s the cost of having a vital executive. 3/5ths or even 2/3rds should be required for any legislative veto.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:34 AM on November 30, 2022
Do you guys know about FDR’s Second Bill of Rights? Interesting reading.
FDR was an amazing visionary. The Second Bill of Rights looks like a more developed version of his Four Freedoms, with emphasis on freedom from want and fear. It's Star Trek's utopia.
posted by jabah at 5:15 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
FDR was an amazing visionary. The Second Bill of Rights looks like a more developed version of his Four Freedoms, with emphasis on freedom from want and fear. It's Star Trek's utopia.
posted by jabah at 5:15 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
If anyone can demonstrate that they had to wait more than 15 minutes to vote on election day, everyone in the state legislature and all statewide elected officials are removed from office. 30 minutes, they all go to prison until the next regularly scheduled election for their office.
This seems just giving an even greater incentive for sovcit types to firebomb a few polling places.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:56 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
This seems just giving an even greater incentive for sovcit types to firebomb a few polling places.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:56 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I hear the arguments that 'land doesn't vote, people do'. But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
Nobody has given me a good explanation for why walking across an invisible internal border should dilute my vote. If a majority of people want to all get together and live in giant arcology in Wyoming, they shouldn't be outvoted by a couple of thousand holdouts living in the now-depopulated rest of the country.
If minority groups getting outvoted by a majority is the problem we need to avoid, we should institute a Lebanon-style system where ethic groups and religious groups all get their own representatives who have to power-share, rather than giving representatives to land. I don't think that's a good idea but I don't think the Senate is either.
When you eliminate the Senate, you effectively reconceptualize the thing from a federal union into the singular State of America.
The US hasn't been a voluntary union since the civil war and most states would never have existed as their own nations; they are mostly fully-created creatures of the US.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:07 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Nobody has given me a good explanation for why walking across an invisible internal border should dilute my vote. If a majority of people want to all get together and live in giant arcology in Wyoming, they shouldn't be outvoted by a couple of thousand holdouts living in the now-depopulated rest of the country.
If minority groups getting outvoted by a majority is the problem we need to avoid, we should institute a Lebanon-style system where ethic groups and religious groups all get their own representatives who have to power-share, rather than giving representatives to land. I don't think that's a good idea but I don't think the Senate is either.
When you eliminate the Senate, you effectively reconceptualize the thing from a federal union into the singular State of America.
The US hasn't been a voluntary union since the civil war and most states would never have existed as their own nations; they are mostly fully-created creatures of the US.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:07 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I wonder if anyone's analyzed the lineage of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura, the subsequent fetishizing of both the Bible as infallible text and the individual's subjective belief in their personal relationship with Jesus as infallible interpreter, to modern right-wing political/legal theories like Constitutional originalism and the sovereign citizen movement. That'd be an interesting read.
I have also had an intuition these two ideas are connected, and would be interested to read about this.
posted by gauche at 6:13 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I have also had an intuition these two ideas are connected, and would be interested to read about this.
posted by gauche at 6:13 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
“Every person living in the United States has the right to free food, free shelter, and free health care.”
I wholeheartedly agree you, both about the intent of the amendment and the simplicity of its wording. However, until the Supreme Court has its power curtailed, or until such time as its makeup changes substantially from what it is today, we have to word all our proposals like we're making wishes to a malevolent trickster genie. As worded here, I'm positive the "strict constructionist" majority of the court would quickly come back with a ruling that "free" in this sentence is actually a verb, as in "open the cage to give food its freedom."
posted by Mayor West at 6:21 AM on November 30, 2022
I wholeheartedly agree you, both about the intent of the amendment and the simplicity of its wording. However, until the Supreme Court has its power curtailed, or until such time as its makeup changes substantially from what it is today, we have to word all our proposals like we're making wishes to a malevolent trickster genie. As worded here, I'm positive the "strict constructionist" majority of the court would quickly come back with a ruling that "free" in this sentence is actually a verb, as in "open the cage to give food its freedom."
posted by Mayor West at 6:21 AM on November 30, 2022
I wonder if anyone's analyzed the lineage of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura, the subsequent fetishizing of both the Bible as infallible text and the individual's subjective belief in their personal relationship with Jesus as infallible interpreter, to modern right-wing political/legal theories like Constitutional originalism and the sovereign citizen movement. That'd be an interesting read.
As always, things get tricky when you introduce Protestants.
posted by Mayor West at 6:24 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
As always, things get tricky when you introduce Protestants.
posted by Mayor West at 6:24 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think the simple majority legislative veto is power grab of huge proportions. A veto gives a hostile Congress the ability to stop the executive branch dead.
Right now the Congressional Review Act is basically useless because it has to pass both Houses of Congress AND have the President (who just issued the item under review) to agree or get 2/3s of both Houses to override the veto. It almost only comes into play when there has been a transition between administrations and the new one wants a clean way to kill the prior administration plans.
The only alternative is have the courts overturn democratically passed legislation and regulation, but that has a whole host of different problems (even though it's really, really popular at the moment.)
posted by jmauro at 6:43 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Right now the Congressional Review Act is basically useless because it has to pass both Houses of Congress AND have the President (who just issued the item under review) to agree or get 2/3s of both Houses to override the veto. It almost only comes into play when there has been a transition between administrations and the new one wants a clean way to kill the prior administration plans.
The only alternative is have the courts overturn democratically passed legislation and regulation, but that has a whole host of different problems (even though it's really, really popular at the moment.)
posted by jmauro at 6:43 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I agree that the executive branch has taken a lot more on itself than was intended (and probably than is good) but all of the decisions the executive branch makes are revisited with a vengeance every time a new officeholder arrives. Congress already holds significant long term power by holding the purse strings — the only time they should be intervening should be in truly egregious situations.
Federalist 71 considers and rejects the idea that the executive power should be vested in more than one person, on the grounds that the executive is responsible for the armed defense of the territory of the nation, and that the execution of a single person's vision is better suited to fighting than the consensus-building that multiple executives would require.
But the same is true of struggles among the branches of government ("horizontal federalism"), as well as between the Federal and state governments ("vertical federalism"). The executive branch has proven over the years to be better at fighting than congress; executive powers have been vastly expanded relative to legislative powers. The federal government's powers have vastly overtaken the power of individual states in many areas of policy.
While the individual executive does change, and does indeed revisit much of the substance of how their predecessor(s) have used executive power, I cannot say I am aware of any executive who has renounced as improper a power that their predecessor(s) have wielded. To use a spatial analogy, they may disagree about how to use a particular piece of claimed territory, but never about the executive's right to use it. The territory, once claimed, is never given back.
posted by gauche at 6:46 AM on November 30, 2022
Federalist 71 considers and rejects the idea that the executive power should be vested in more than one person, on the grounds that the executive is responsible for the armed defense of the territory of the nation, and that the execution of a single person's vision is better suited to fighting than the consensus-building that multiple executives would require.
But the same is true of struggles among the branches of government ("horizontal federalism"), as well as between the Federal and state governments ("vertical federalism"). The executive branch has proven over the years to be better at fighting than congress; executive powers have been vastly expanded relative to legislative powers. The federal government's powers have vastly overtaken the power of individual states in many areas of policy.
While the individual executive does change, and does indeed revisit much of the substance of how their predecessor(s) have used executive power, I cannot say I am aware of any executive who has renounced as improper a power that their predecessor(s) have wielded. To use a spatial analogy, they may disagree about how to use a particular piece of claimed territory, but never about the executive's right to use it. The territory, once claimed, is never given back.
posted by gauche at 6:46 AM on November 30, 2022
I like the "the natural born citizen requirement for President", too.
Even if it exists only to keep Elon Musk from being president.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 7:13 AM on November 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
Even if it exists only to keep Elon Musk from being president.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 7:13 AM on November 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
Nowadays, the 'highest population wins' would mean that California, Texas, New York and Florida tell the whole country how it's going to be.
So you're saying that if Gavin Newsom, Greg Abbott, Kathy Hochul, and Ron DeSantis agree to something, then it'll happen regardless of whatever everyone else wants?
I'm curiously unworried about that prospect.
Or do you just mean the 143 Representatives from those states? I remain curiously unworried about them steamrollering the other 2/3 of the House.
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
So you're saying that if Gavin Newsom, Greg Abbott, Kathy Hochul, and Ron DeSantis agree to something, then it'll happen regardless of whatever everyone else wants?
I'm curiously unworried about that prospect.
Or do you just mean the 143 Representatives from those states? I remain curiously unworried about them steamrollering the other 2/3 of the House.
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
The alternative is letting a minority of people in sparsely populated states run things for everyone else, which I'd suggest isn't a better option. That disproportionate power is a big part of why the Republican party has been able to swing as out of control as it has. If they had to have policies that actually appealed to a majority of voters, they'd have to be more moderate.
The existence of a forum where each of the states are treated as equal peers was/is kind of an important component of the whole setup.
The world has changed a lot in the past 200some years and it's ok to recognize what (mostly) worked then doesn't work now.
posted by Candleman at 8:23 AM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
The alternative is letting a minority of people in sparsely populated states run things for everyone else, which I'd suggest isn't a better option. That disproportionate power is a big part of why the Republican party has been able to swing as out of control as it has. If they had to have policies that actually appealed to a majority of voters, they'd have to be more moderate.
The existence of a forum where each of the states are treated as equal peers was/is kind of an important component of the whole setup.
The world has changed a lot in the past 200some years and it's ok to recognize what (mostly) worked then doesn't work now.
posted by Candleman at 8:23 AM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Democracy means everyone gets one vote regardless of other factors
Which often leads to minority groups getting roundly screwed. It wasn't a majority vote of the country that ended segregation.
Or do you just mean the 143 Representatives from those states? I remain curiously unworried about them steamrollering the other 2/3 of the House
Interesting -- I calculated how the minimum number of states that would make up a majority of the House and it looks like 9 (math & research not guaranteed!): CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, GA, OH, IL, NC add up to 221.
posted by Galvanic at 8:29 AM on November 30, 2022
Which often leads to minority groups getting roundly screwed. It wasn't a majority vote of the country that ended segregation.
Or do you just mean the 143 Representatives from those states? I remain curiously unworried about them steamrollering the other 2/3 of the House
Interesting -- I calculated how the minimum number of states that would make up a majority of the House and it looks like 9 (math & research not guaranteed!): CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, GA, OH, IL, NC add up to 221.
posted by Galvanic at 8:29 AM on November 30, 2022
Suppose we wanted to really take account of conditions being different in different regions. What might be a good structure?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:46 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:46 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
“Every person living in the United States has the right to free food, free shelter, and free health care.”
This is great in principle but in practice, well... here in Canada (the control group for the American Experiment), we have a level of social safety net that would make Tucker Carlson's cerebra cortex dissolve into Jell-O. The health care is good (in that a serious illness or accident does not bankrupt you for life), and dental care arrives as part of that in the next few years, but the way housing is handled is less than perfect. The Toronto Star ran a story yesterday on the subsidized housing situation in Toronto. The headline:
This is great in principle but in practice, well... here in Canada (the control group for the American Experiment), we have a level of social safety net that would make Tucker Carlson's cerebra cortex dissolve into Jell-O. The health care is good (in that a serious illness or accident does not bankrupt you for life), and dental care arrives as part of that in the next few years, but the way housing is handled is less than perfect. The Toronto Star ran a story yesterday on the subsidized housing situation in Toronto. The headline:
A 37-year wait for a subsidized one-bedroom, 3,808 applicants for 200 lower-cost rentals. The hunt for affordable housing in Toronto todayposted by ricochet biscuit at 8:49 AM on November 30, 2022
Interesting -- I calculated how the minimum number of states that would make up a majority of the House and it looks like 9 (math & research not guaranteed!): CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, GA, OH, IL, NC add up to 221.
Yes, those nine states have 50.82% of the House. They also have 50.49% of the US population, which means they're overrepresented by exactly one Representative among them.
posted by Etrigan at 9:28 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes, those nine states have 50.82% of the House. They also have 50.49% of the US population, which means they're overrepresented by exactly one Representative among them.
posted by Etrigan at 9:28 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I did not look at TFA, yet, but scanned the whole thread (40 comments now) for mention of the fact that if you could pass a Constitutional Amendment at all, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. I see just one person pointing out something along those lines (hi @Saxon Kane).
I do not see a way forward via Constitutional Amendments. I see the prospect of an Article V Convention, convened by the Republican faction, being used to institute an open Herrenvolk republic for White Christianpeople men. That final clause of the last sentence of Article V,
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:32 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I do not see a way forward via Constitutional Amendments. I see the prospect of an Article V Convention, convened by the Republican faction, being used to institute an open Herrenvolk republic for White Christian
... and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.is a landmine that ensures that the US Constitution will be replaced wholesale someday.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:32 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
That final clause of the last sentence of Article V,
... and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
is a landmine that ensures that the US Constitution will be replaced wholesale someday.
I was struck by the fact that the conservative and libertarian team members acknowledged that this could be a flaw in the Constitution.
They didn't agree to amend it but they did propose making it amendable, which is more than I would have expected.
posted by Octaviuz at 10:03 AM on November 30, 2022
... and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
is a landmine that ensures that the US Constitution will be replaced wholesale someday.
I was struck by the fact that the conservative and libertarian team members acknowledged that this could be a flaw in the Constitution.
They didn't agree to amend it but they did propose making it amendable, which is more than I would have expected.
posted by Octaviuz at 10:03 AM on November 30, 2022
One model of what happens when you guarantee a certain amount of state services is McCleary v. Washington which... sort of worked, I think? The court ended up holding the legislature in contempt and levying fines against the state. I think the result was that the state ended up raising state taxes and restricting local levies to try and guarantee a minimum level of funding that complied with the ruling.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:07 AM on November 30, 2022
posted by BungaDunga at 10:07 AM on November 30, 2022
The trick with that Article V clause is to add a clause to make it amendable (which it doesn't prohibit doing) and then amend it. Or just pretend it's a nullity- if everyone agrees to do so, then you can do anything.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:11 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 10:11 AM on November 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Which often leads to minority groups getting roundly screwed.
Quick, name a minority that the Senatorial system has protected in the past 50 years that isn't rural voters, who happen to be largely white and conservative.
Has it protected Native Americans?
African Americans?
Asian Americans?
The desperately poor?
Muslims?
LGBT?
So who is it protecting and from what?
It wasn't a majority vote of the country that ended segregation.
The main single vote that's thought of as having helped end segregation is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was bipartisan and passed both houses substantially, with it being largely everyone but the South voting for it.
posted by Candleman at 10:22 AM on November 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
Quick, name a minority that the Senatorial system has protected in the past 50 years that isn't rural voters, who happen to be largely white and conservative.
Has it protected Native Americans?
African Americans?
Asian Americans?
The desperately poor?
Muslims?
LGBT?
So who is it protecting and from what?
It wasn't a majority vote of the country that ended segregation.
The main single vote that's thought of as having helped end segregation is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was bipartisan and passed both houses substantially, with it being largely everyone but the South voting for it.
posted by Candleman at 10:22 AM on November 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
Etrigan said:
Yes, those nine states have 50.82% of the House. They also have 50.49% of the US population, which means they're overrepresented by exactly one Representative among them.
I wasn't arguing otherwise.
Candleman said:
name a minority that the Senatorial system
A criticism of one system is not a defense of another.
Candleman said:
The main single vote that's thought of as having helped end segregation
The main single vote that had more to do with the end of segregation was Brown v. Board and it was taken at a time when majority opinion in both the public and Congress was against ending segregation.
posted by Galvanic at 11:41 AM on November 30, 2022
Yes, those nine states have 50.82% of the House. They also have 50.49% of the US population, which means they're overrepresented by exactly one Representative among them.
I wasn't arguing otherwise.
Candleman said:
name a minority that the Senatorial system
A criticism of one system is not a defense of another.
Candleman said:
The main single vote that's thought of as having helped end segregation
The main single vote that had more to do with the end of segregation was Brown v. Board and it was taken at a time when majority opinion in both the public and Congress was against ending segregation.
posted by Galvanic at 11:41 AM on November 30, 2022
If the possibility of an Article V Constitutional Convention could be removed from the table it would be helpful.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 12:31 PM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 12:31 PM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
In the past I have responded to fears about Article V conventions by asking whether the current constitution is working all that well but in fairness, Iranian socialists in the late 70s probably thought things couldn't possibly get worse.
posted by Octaviuz at 1:19 PM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Octaviuz at 1:19 PM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
But what about the situation where a couple of population clusters end up running things for everybody else all over?
The alternative is letting a minority of people in sparsely populated states run things for everyone else, which I'd suggest isn't a better option. That disproportionate power is a big part of why the Republican party has been able to swing as out of control as it has. If they had to have policies that actually appealed to a majority of voters, they'd have to be more moderate.
This sort of thing is how the ultra-conservative, rural-focussed National Party (previously Country Party) stayed in power so long here in Queensland, despite only having a minority support from voters.
posted by dg at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2022
The alternative is letting a minority of people in sparsely populated states run things for everyone else, which I'd suggest isn't a better option. That disproportionate power is a big part of why the Republican party has been able to swing as out of control as it has. If they had to have policies that actually appealed to a majority of voters, they'd have to be more moderate.
This sort of thing is how the ultra-conservative, rural-focussed National Party (previously Country Party) stayed in power so long here in Queensland, despite only having a minority support from voters.
posted by dg at 1:54 PM on November 30, 2022
The main single vote that's thought of as having helped end segregation is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was bipartisan and passed both houses substantially, with it being largely everyone but the South voting for it
Some Republicans like to take credit for Republicans voting for the Voting Rights Act, but the alignments were different at the time. There were conservative Democrats (mostly in the South) and liberal Republicans (mostly outside the South). The conservative Democrats mostly became Republicans and the liberal Republicans went extinct.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:53 PM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Some Republicans like to take credit for Republicans voting for the Voting Rights Act, but the alignments were different at the time. There were conservative Democrats (mostly in the South) and liberal Republicans (mostly outside the South). The conservative Democrats mostly became Republicans and the liberal Republicans went extinct.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:53 PM on November 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
That disproportionate power is a big part of why the Republican party has been able to swing as out of control as it has.
It's much more complicated than that -- both parties used to appeal to both rural & urban voters, which meant that the imbalance wasn't as bad. Truman in 1948 could win Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho as a Democrat, while his opponent Dewey won New York State.
But now both parties have shifted in ways that prioritize urban voters (the Democrats) or rural voters (Republicans), and that gives a structural advantage to Republicans (though it swings back and forth -- the Democrats lost the "popular vote"* in 2022 by about 3.5% points but overperformed in both the House and Senate).
posted by Galvanic at 6:39 AM on December 1, 2022
It's much more complicated than that -- both parties used to appeal to both rural & urban voters, which meant that the imbalance wasn't as bad. Truman in 1948 could win Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho as a Democrat, while his opponent Dewey won New York State.
But now both parties have shifted in ways that prioritize urban voters (the Democrats) or rural voters (Republicans), and that gives a structural advantage to Republicans (though it swings back and forth -- the Democrats lost the "popular vote"* in 2022 by about 3.5% points but overperformed in both the House and Senate).
posted by Galvanic at 6:39 AM on December 1, 2022
1. Create an Elections Commission that exists as a federal, non-partisan body that draws electoral district maps to get roughly equal populations in each district with district boundaries as close as possible to squares except where boundaries like state borders and maybe municipal borders interfere. I'm sure there's a better way to express that idea. But it is absolutely bonkers that I am in a district shaped like barbell because my one-party state (TN) gets to draw federal elections boundaries. I know the idea of a "neutral" way of drawing boundaries is complex but the way we do it now is the absolute dumbest possible solution.
2. The number of seats on the Supreme Court should equal the number of federal judicial districts.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:55 PM on December 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
2. The number of seats on the Supreme Court should equal the number of federal judicial districts.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:55 PM on December 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
« Older Sick of Musk? | You got to vaccinate people against the hate. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Peach at 7:40 PM on November 29, 2022 [6 favorites]