Why should the dead rule the living?

Introduction

The US Constitution has a particularly grave flaw: While it addresses the issue of how to amend it, it is totally silent on how to completely replace it. That doesn't mean We-the-People don't have a right to replace it, though We'll have to be creative as to how We'd proceed* when that time comes.

Meanwhile, today I will address how the US might overcome this "particularly grave flaw." I will also analyze Article V of the US Constitution as a means the Founding Fathers developed in order to thwart the States and the People, should either decide to pursue amendments not to the liking of Congress (i.e., the central government). Then I'll offer some thoughts on "mob rule" and a closing section of comments regarding constitutions in general.

Our gravest flaw

The gravest flaw in the Constitution can be remedied by a new amendment* including these ideas:

"Every 25 years, this question will be put before the voters: 'Do you favor keeping the current Constitution and its amendments completely intact or do you favor the convening of a Constitutional Convention to reconsider all or part of the entire package, up to and including a complete replacement thereof?'"

Additional language could determine what minimum percentage of the vote should: 1) trigger a new Con Con, and 2) serve to ratify (again, by popular vote) any new Constitution in its entirety or any new amendments generated by this Con Con. I'm personally in favor of a simple majority of all voting-age citizens. As for the Con Con, a simple majority of delegates should suffice for it to offer its recommended changes to the voters. Our Founding Fathers were supremely arrogant to think they could get it right for all time by not including any mechanism for replacing the entire Constitution. Apparently, their view was, it's okay for the dead to rule future generations.

Article V analysis

First, I'll quote Article V in its entirety. Please note: I inserted a break in Article V to separate the first part (which is the most relevant to my analysis) from the second part (which brings up certain specific issues which any constitutional rewrite should address). I yellowed four parts of the Article, which I'll proceed to analyze after the word UNQUOTE:

QUOTE:

Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

:UNQUOTE.

shall call a convention - If Congress wishes to propose amendments, Article V makes that easy. However, if the states wish to propose amendments, they could be easily resisted by an unwilling Congress. Article V merely says Congress shall call a convention, but it doesn't say what should happen if Congress refuses to do so. Congress could refuse directly or indirectly by claiming that it couldn't come to an agreement as to how this convention should be set up.

Set-up, I believe, should be left up to the states. Congress could claim the right to not only call a convention, but to define that which is being called, completely bypassing the states. I don't see why three-fourths of the states couldn't sign an agreement themselves - that is, without Congress - calling such a convention as well as defining how this convention is to be set up. But the Founding Fathers wanted the mechanism, which Article V provides, to thwart the states. They felt that the states should become firmly subordinate to a strong central government.

or by conventions - Again, Congress is given a power which should have been given to the states. If Congress didn't want the states to engage in a ratification process, it could simply claim, while crying crocodile tears, that "We are deadlocked - we can't decide if legislatures or conventions should be utilized."

may be proposed - The word "proposed" is inappropriate here. If Congress were to merely "propose" something to the states, doesn't that imply that the states would have an option of saying "no?" These words - may be proposed - really mean - "shall be dictated."

equal suffrage in the Senate - This whole idea of states having equal suffrage in the Senate is based on the notion that we'll always have a Senate and we'll always have states. It could come to pass that both will come to be seen as unnecessary. I created a system of government I call Cross-Sectional Representation, which shows what the future might look like without these two institutions, which I describe at http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

Mob rule

I highlighted the words "a new amendment," above, in green - like this: a new amendment*. In this new amendment, I advocate that a simple majority of all voting-age citizens should suffice to either amend or replace the Constitution. When I made this proposal elsewhere online, one commentator claimed that I'd be subjecting the USA to "mob rule." This was part of my response to him:

QUOTE:

About your third sentence, I refer you to the definition of “mob”: “a large crowd of people, esp. one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.” Are you saying 50.01% of our voting-age citizens could constitute such a “mob?” This whole mob phobia was talked up by our early aristocracy to make it harder for We-the-People to challenge their rule. And...if 50.01% should vote to “take some right away,” maybe it's because they felt it was not really a right in the first place.

:UNQUOTE.

Much as I disagree with Sarah Palin, I want to cite one of her claims - that our form of government was based on the notion that we are a good, moral people. Without this basic goodness, our noble experiment cannot work. Whenever I hear claims about the dangers of submitting to the will of We-the-People really meaning "submitting to mob rule," what I hear it this: The people cannot be trusted to run their own affairs, so we must defer to our betters for this task.

Insisting that a simple majority of all voting-age citizens be empowered to amend or replace doesn't run the risk of making it too easy, as is feared by some, to whimsically change the Law of the Land. For one thing, a lot of people don't vote, so (in effect) no change can take place without a supermajority of those who do vote. Then there's the inherent distrust many voters have regarding any change to the Constitution - let alone a complete replacement - since they regard this document as virtually holy.

Lastly, since my proposal calls for a Constitutional reconsideration every 25 years, people would know well in advance that a chance to vote on this issue is on the calendar. And that would give ample time for a national dialogue to evolve, which would defuse the potential for mob action. Such action tends to take place when issues are suddenly thrust upon people who are forced to make quick decisions to resolve.


Constitutions in general

Currently, a lot of countries have been trying to rewrite their Constitutions - and they look to the example provided by the United States. I would say, that's fine but don't let our experience in this regard substitute for your own wisdom. There's a growing conservatism in this country that is throttling creativity, not to mention good old-fashion common sense. So, I'm afraid, the world must look elsewhere for leadership, including innovations in governance models. I sincerely hope there are people out there who can rise to this challenge.

The United States has a great deal to be proud of. Unfortunately, it also has much to be ashamed of - for instance, the fact that we were the world's first nuclear terrorists. I'm speaking in particular of the WWII bombing of Nagasaki a scant three days after Hiroshima. Few people would use the term I'm employing - nuclear terrorists - but I firmly believe in owning up to one's sins and calling something by its proper name.

And then atoning for past misdeeds. One ready example of that lies with Germany. A lot of Germans might think, "Time heals all wounds, so we shouldn't dwell on the past." A great deal more in the way of proactive atonement is still necessary before the karma of the Holocaust can be expiated. And any attempt to think of that episode as only some distant, long-forgotten episode will be doomed to failure. Not to mention karmic retribution.

Americans have come to think of themselves as divinely appointed to save the world. And that has led to an arrogance which became laziness. These days, you will not find the best this country has to offer coming from its mainstream, instead coming from its fringes - which is where I and many others dwell. But we overlook the fact that there are heroes and geniuses from all nations of the world. The USA has no monopoly on these all important commodities.

A well-written Constitution can be a great asset. But even that, if ignored or twisted by convenience into perverse meanings, will end up doing no earthly good. There are many Americans who treat their constitution as if it's some kind of magic talisman - simply wave it in the air and evil spirits will be defeated. It doesn't work like that. Any constitution can only be as good as the body politic that stands behind it - if indeed, they honestly and vigorously stand behind it.

I would like to see one feature become a common element in all constitutions the world over - that they proactively seek to eliminate national sovereignty in favor of an integration into a larger world. One such method would involve the integration of the world's armed forces, and a reduction in spending to support the largest war machines. But as I said, we have to become better people in order for these good things to happen.

For instance, the USA could have said "no" to the plan to develop the F-35 jet and produce 2,400 of them at a cost of over one trillion dollars. We could have realized that we didn't need a force that could clear the skies of all enemy aircraft quickly and easily. I surely hope there aren't neo-cons among us who have that very thought in mind. They would do well to remember, for instance, that were we to succeed in doing that to Russia, they would be virtually forced to start throwing some nukes around. And in that way, we would (ironically) be continuing our legacy as nuclear terrorists by forcing our opponents to respond by such drastic means.

The importance of having a goodnesss of heart cannot be overemphasized.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

how We'd proceed* - This link shows one way We could proceed:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/general-strike-declared-by-steven.html

a new amendment* - This color-coded item is used twice in this essay, the 2nd use referring to the first.