Fareed Zakaria: Are America's Best Days Behind Us? - "We have an Electoral College that no one understands and a Senate that doesn't work, with rules and traditions that allow a single Senator to obstruct democracy without even explaining why. We have a crazy-quilt patchwork of towns, municipalities and states with overlapping authority, bureaucracies and resulting waste. We have a political system geared toward ceaseless fundraising and pandering to the interests of the present with no ability to plan, invest or build for the future. And if one mentions any of this, why, one is being unpatriotic, because we have the perfect system of government, handed down to us by demigods who walked the earth in the late 18th century and who serve as models for us today and forever. America's founders would have been profoundly annoyed by this kind of unreflective ancestor worship." [for/against]
posted by kliuless on Apr 17, 2011 - 93 comments

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has joined several other key Republican leaders and conservative commentators who are calling for Congress to review the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Consitution. The Citizenship Clause has been interpreted, since the Supreme Court decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, to give "birthright citizenship" to children born on U.S. soil to non-citizens (whom some GOP politicans call "anchor babies"). McConnell's comments are not the first time (see section "A Sensible Immigration Policy") the GOP has tried to question the clause. Some see the move as another attempt to capitalize on anti-immigration sentiment in the build-up to the mid-term elections.
posted by aught on Aug 3, 2010 - 215 comments

A Gay Soldier's Husband — In the backdrop of the conservative activist Supreme Court's recent decision against hearing a challenge to the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, one gay American relates the difficulties he faces having a partner on active duty in Iraq. In Iraq itself, death squads continue to murder gay and lesbian Iraqis, while American occupying forces look the other way.
posted by Blazecock Pileon on Jun 10, 2009 - 73 comments

A very special 'This American Life' about an administration with the endemic belief that laws only apply to the little people, and a limitless refusal to concede on even petty issues, no matter the costs. The highlight is about immigrant widows of US citizens (30:50). The program also discusses the constitutional beliefs of the presidential candidates. [more inside]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 on Apr 2, 2008 - 43 comments

Oral arguments were heard today in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first occasion in almost 70 years for the Supreme Court to decide the question, "Just what does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mean?"
posted by Law Talkin' Guy on Mar 18, 2008 - 104 comments

Amend for Arnold & Jen (found on linkfilter) is a site trying to start up one of them "grassroots movements" to amend the Constitution of the United States, in order to allow naturalized citizens, those who were not born in the U.S. but have since become citizens, the possibility of holding the office of President. But not just out of a sense of social justice; primarily, it's to clear the way for an Arnold Schwarzenegger presidential campaign. (Or one for Jennifer Granholm... heh, whoever that is!)

It should be noted, for whatever it's worth, that Wikipedia's entry for Granholm states that she cares "not a whit" for running for president. Of special note are the slogans the AFA (gasp, not AFA&J?!?!) people cooked up to advance their cause, "Amend US," "Give 10 to Amend," and "Tell Your Friends 2 Amend." Because let's face it: if you voted for ol' Schwarzy, you're probably a little more susceptible to catchphrases than the average bear, hm? Oh I'm know I'm gonna catch it for that one.
posted by JHarris on Aug 14, 2005 - 43 comments

Seizure of land for the public good or unconstitutional cash grab? Originally, the power of eminent domain was used by government to condemn property for the public good, usually to build railroads or highways or bridges. This power has been expanded to redevelop dilapidated neighbourhoods, and ultimately, "economic development" (public good by way of jobs and taxes). What will you do when Pfizer wants to build a research facility *on* your backyard and your government helps them do it? Hint: it's nothing new, just wait for 2008 or 2012 (maybe).
posted by loquax on Feb 23, 2005 - 40 comments

Party like it's 1892! "Executive power and patronage have been used to corrupt our legislatures and defeat the will of the people, and plutocracy has thereby been enthroned upon the ruins of democracy."* In the late 1800s, the Populist Party, or People's Party, formed to merge the Farmers Alliance message of economic empowerment for growers with the Knights of Labor's movement to check the growing power and corrupt practices of big business (along with the Greenbacks Party critiques of monetary policy). With a strong base in the midwest and south, the party earned 9% of the 1892 popular vote, won the presidential electoral votes of four states (not to mention electing 10 congressmen, 5 senators, 3 governors, and 1,500 state legislators). However the party's power quickly faded as the Democratic Party co-opted much of the Populist platform while internal disputes culminated in the Populists placing the Dems' 1896 nominee at the head of their own ticket. Nevertheless, the populist movement's influence continued to be felt through various 20th century reforms including direct election of senators, presidential term limits, and abandonment of the gold standard.
posted by nakedcodemonkey on Jan 5, 2005 - 7 comments

Foreign-born presidents reviewed again. NYT link. Some previous discussion here.
posted by yoga on Oct 6, 2004 - 21 comments

Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment Pres. Bush called for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage today, blaming "activist judges", the Massachusettes Supreme Court, and the mayor of San Francisco, among others, for attempting "to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

How this call for an amendment plays out remains to be seen, but Bush is taking a strong stance on this issue, in what some see as another 'big headline' proposal during the election season. What will this mean for the civil rights of homosexuals in this country? And how will voters react in November?
posted by nyukid on Feb 24, 2004 - 377 comments

216 years ago today, the constitution of the United States was signed with "Unanimous Consent"* from the thirteen states. In the years since, many have used the other writings of those governmental framers to interpret the constitution. To make that task easier, the University of Chicago Press offers The Framer's Constitution, an exhaustively annotated document that includes not just references to those other writings, but the complete texts as well. The print version is 3200 pages and costs a pretty penny, but thanks to the Liberty Fund, you can access it on-line for free.
posted by ewagoner on Sep 17, 2003 - 29 comments

Michael Newdow is probably smiling today. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reconsider last June's ruling finding the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional.
posted by mrbula on Feb 28, 2003 - 12 comments

“A nation is little more and nothing less than a conversation. [T]he conversation that is the United States has continued for more than 200 years as a lover's quarrel between equality and justice.” A gallery of ways this “conversation” is still taking place in the ways we live the Constitution’s 27 Amendments every day.
posted by arco on Nov 27, 2002 - 9 comments

The anomalies of the U.S. Constitution: what next? Ok, not a serious 'polemical' post, more a request for your take on the mysteries which politics brings us...
- how come Wyoming has 3 Senators?
- how come DC has none?
- what other wierd stuff would you fix in the Constitution of your state, given the choice? (for my part, ditching the Windsors and embracing democracy would be a start...)
posted by dash_slot- on Jul 3, 2002 - 64 comments

It turns out before the election, representatives introduced a bi-partisan bill in both the House (H.J. Res. 113) and the Senate (S.J. Res. 56) to amend the Constitution to replace the electoral college with the direct election of the President and Vice President. Contact your reps to ask them to support the bills. If we're going to get electoral reform, it will be now.
posted by veruca on Nov 12, 2000 - 17 comments