Can Congress Be Fixed?

I'll be 74 years old next month, and in all that time I've never seen Congress in such a mess. Neither party has leadership worthy of the name, the majority party refuses even to hold discussions with the minority, and the last time a budget was passed under the normal process ("regular order") was fiscal year 1997. The 119th Congress is clearly the most useless in history.

What went wrong? Lots of ink has been spilled trying to answer that question, and the answer generally depends on the political leanings of the person offering an opinion. There are lots of articles, manifestos, OpEds, memes, and other screeds which offer suggestions for fixing the rot, some of which are silly and unworkable, but many of which are promising, if unlikely (for various reasons) ever to be adopted. Here are a few that I think show potential for returning Congress to something resembling other than a adult playroom:

1. Impose Term Limits. The Constitution limits Presidents to two terms, but places no similar limits on members of Congress. Unlimited terms allow individual members to accumulate power based on longevity rather than competence, and imposing term limits would bring regular infusions of new blood and ideas. A good balance of new and experienced members could be achieved by limiting Senators to two six-year terms and Representatives to six two-year terms, for a total of 12 years.

2. Adopt Flexible Rates of Pay. Set the salary of each member at the median income for the state they represent. This will ensure that members understand their constituents' financial reality.

3. Require Members of Congress to Obtain Health Insurance from the Exchanges in their Home States. Coupled with pay calculation described above, this will ensure that members understand the health care problems their constituents face, and help focus them on developing fair and workable solutions.

4. Conduct Routine Business Remotely. There are many options for secure online communication which will allow members of Congress to remain in their districts, close to their constituents, while conducting most ordinary legislative business. The full Congress could assemble periodically, perhaps quarterly or semiannually, for in-person sessions to conduct business or hold hearings that can not be conducted remotely.

5. Require Single-Issue Legislation. Omnibus legislation running to thousands of pages and larded with "poison pills" for political advantage are opaque, an invitation to corrupt deal-making, and insult to the citizens. Congress needs to return to the traditional budget process (regular order) and adopt a system of single-issue legislation to improve focus and understanding.

6. Bring Back Campaign Finance Limits. Terrible Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United allow corporations and the wealthy to pump unlimited amounts of money to their preferred candidates, giving these a dominant voice in the political process and ensuring that elected officials are beholden to their wealthiest campaign donors rather than the average voter. Campaign finance limits must be reimposed and enforced to reduce opportunities for corruption and ensure fairness in representation.

7. Require Members of Congress to Recuse Themselves from Drafting and Voting on Legislation in Which They Have Personal Financial Interest. The authority of Congress is diminished when there is an appearance of conflicts of interest.

More needs to be done, but this would be a good start ... something to think about as we begin yet another fiscal year with no budget.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Rethinking the Presidency in the Constitution

If the rolling catastrophe of Der Furor's presidency has taught us anything, it's that the authors of the Constitution severely underestimated the ability of unprincipled, unscrupulous, and dangerous individuals and parties to exploit every conceivable loophole of a document deliberately crafted to be ambiguous enough to appeal to a wide range of ideologies, geographical concerns, and governing philosophies.

Although I realize there's not the least chance in my lifetime of the Constitution ever being updated or amended to fix its worst shortcomings, here's my recommendation for updating Article II, which covers the presidency and its powers.

Article II - The Executive Branch

Section 1 - General

The Executive Branch is headed by the President of the United States of America, who serves both as head of state and head of government. The President is elected for a four year term of office, and may serve a maximum of two terms, which need not be consecutive. A President elected to a second, nonconsecutive term may not run for an additional term. A President who serves a partial term due to the death, resignation, or removal of the elected incumbent, is considered to have served a full term.

The President is assisted by a Vice President, who will serve as President should the incumbent die, resign, be impeached, or be otherwise unable to fulfill the duties of the office. 

Section 2 - Qualifications for Office  

In order to serve as President or Vice President, a candidate must be between thirty-five and sixty-five years of age and a citizen of the United States, either native born or naturalized. A naturalized citizen must have been a citizen for a minimum of twenty years as of the date of election, and may not hold dual citizenship with their country of birth or any other country. 

Section 3 - Election, Compensation, and Presidential Oath of Office

The President and Vice President will be elected by the popular vote of the majority of legal adult citizens eligible to vote according to the laws of the respective states.

Presidential elections will be held on the first Tuesday of November, unless Congress changes the date through legislation. Each state will determine its own methods, rules and systems for the conduct of elections, as long as the state's laws do not limit the right of eligible citizens to vote. The President's term of office begins at noon on January 20th of the year following the date of election, or on January 21st should the 20th fall on a Sunday.

The President and Vice President shall receive a salary paid from the Treasury, the amount of which shall be fixed by law and shall neither increase nor decrease during their term of office. While serving in office, they shall receive no other salary, payment, reward, or compensation from any other source, and shall place all personal investments or other holdings into a blind trust. Expenses of the office of the President and Vice President for their official duties shall likewise be paid from the Treasury, and subject annually to formal audit and accounting, the results of which shall be considered public information. Gifts of any form or value presented to the President or Vice President by a foreign leader are the property of the United States and may not be retained for personal use or display.

Before taking office, the President shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 4 - Duties and Responsibilities of the President and Vice President

As Head of Government, the President shall oversee the activities of Executive Branch agencies, but will exercise no direct day-to-day managerial control over their operations; such control will be carried out by heads of the respective departments nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 

As Head of State, the President shall be the official representative of the United States at all international conferences, assemblies, and other meetings of national leaders.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and of the National Guard forces of the States when those forces are mobilized for service of the United States. Mobilization for national service of National Guard units must be ordered in writing by the President and shall not exceed thirty days duration unless authorized by Congress. In an emergency, the President may order, through the Secretary of Defense, the employment of forces necessary to meet the immediate emergency; however, such employment of forces must be approved by the Senate within ten calendar days.

The President may solicit the opinion and advice of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties and responsibilities of their offices.

The President shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Reprieves and pardons will be granted only upon a formal recommendation made to the President by the Department of Justice.  

The President shall have power to negotiate treaties, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate and the concurrence of two thirds of the Senators. 

The President shall nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, officers of the federal government, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are established by law. Congress may by legislation vest the appointment of specific officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the appropriate courts, or in the heads of the departments in which they will serve.

The President shall have the power to remove, for cause based on publicly provided evidence, officers they have appointed. Causes for removal include, but are not limited to, treason, fraud, bribery, felony criminal acts, and abuse of office. 

The President may fill vacancies that occur when the Senate is in recess, but such appointments must be confirmed by the Senate when it reconvenes. Recess appointees not subsequently confirmed by the Senate shall be withdrawn and new nominees submitted for approval.

The President shall, at least annually, provide Congress his or her assessment of the state of the union, relations of the United States with other nations, details of their legislative program, and their view of the nation for the coming year.

The President shall receive Ambassadors and other public ministers, although the Secretary of State shall generally perform this duty except when diplomatic circumstances require the personal attention of the President. 

The President shall faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. 

The President shall commission all officers of the United States government and the Armed Forces.

The duties of the Vice President are as assigned by the President, except that the Vice President shall serve as President of the Senate. In this role, the Vice President will have no vote on legislation or other matters unless the Senate is evenly divided.

Section 5 - Line of Succession

Should the President be unable to exercise the duties of office, the following officials will, in the specified order of succession, assume the Presidency:

The Vice President

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

The President Pro Tempore of the Senate

The Secretary of State

The Secretary of the Treasury

The Secretary of Defense

The Attorney General

The Secretary of the Interior

The Secretary of Agriculture

The Secretary of Commerce

The Secretary of Labor

The Secretary of Health and Human Services

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

The Secretary of Transportation

The Secretary of Energy

The Secretary of Education

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

The Secretary of Homeland Security

Section 6 - Removal from Office

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, public corruption, or other criminal offenses.

*****

What do you think of my recommended changes and updates? Would this prevent the rise of another Der Furor-like president? What have I missed, or what could be better expressed to eliminate loopholes? Would any of this make things worse? Leave a comment and let's discuss. 

Have a good day. Keep an eye on presidents who believe they are kings. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The Project 2025 Rewrite of the Preamble to the Constitution

The Preamble to the Constitution is one of the most famous and frequently cited written works of American history. In case you need a refresher (and nowadays, most Americans do), here it is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Most people haven't noticed, but Project 2025 - the detailed plan for a complete ultraconservative makeover of the United States that Der Furor claimed to know nothing about during the campaign - also included a full rewrite of the Preamble to the Constitution to align it with the Republican wet dream of a Christian theocracy run by billionaires who know better than the great unwashed how to make and manage money. They haven't rewritten the rest of the Constitution yet ... they're just ignoring what they don't like and making up the rest as they go along.

In case you haven't seen it, here's the Project 2025 version of the Preamble to the Constitution that presents Der Furor's vision of the United States of America:

We the Wealthy, White, Christian citizens of the United States, in order to preserve our political power, ensure justice appropriate to the race and economic station of each individual, insure domestic tranquility by militarizing the police and strengthening their qualified immunity, provide for the common defense by making sure the military isn't full of nonlethal woke transgendered DEI hires, promote the general welfare insofar as such promotion does not create a culture of dependence which turns lazy individuals into public charges or limit the funding available for corporate welfare programs, and secure the blessings of liberty only to those belonging to traditionally American racial, economic, and religious groups, do ordain and establish this updated Constitution for the United States of America. If you don’t like it, leave. 

Just trying to keep you up to date on what's going on behind the scenes while you've been distracted by the outrage du jour.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

So, How's That Constitution Thing Working Out for You?

I wrote the original version of this post almost three years ago (June 27, 2022), and today seems like an appropriate time for a revisit and update ... 

The 55 representatives - all of them male, all white and all privileged members of their society - who attended  the Constitutional Convention of 1789 drafted the United States Constitution to define the parameters of a new form of government for a new form of nation. 

The preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So, how’s that working out now, 236 years after the representatives to the Constitutional Convention slapped each other on the back and went home? Let's see ...

“Form a More Perfect Union.” We survived the Civil War more or less intact, but the union today is being torn apart by political passions inflamed by the power-mad, the ultra-wealthy, and the religion-blinded. At a time when the nation faces huge problems and perils at home and abroad, Congress is driven by an angry and vengeful president to force an agenda that most of his supporters don't fully understand and probably wouldn't support if they did. The Blue and Gray states of antebellum America have given way to the Blue and Red states of modern America, aided by relentless gerrymandering of Congressional districts to ensure control by a particular party, rather than by the people to be represented. 

“Establish Justice.” We have a larger proportion of our population in prison than any other nation. The degree and quality of justice one can expect is directly proportional to one’s ability to hire the largest number of the most expensive, most aggressive, most experienced, and least principled attorneys. If you are black, brown, or poor, good luck. And whether or not you agree with the freedoms once granted by the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, consider that a strongly conservative Supreme Court ignored 50 years of precedent and - for the first time - used the Dobbs decision to remove a freedom we thought was guaranteed under the Constitution. And as if that weren't enough, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write that the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [which removed legal barriers to contraception], Lawrence [which guaranteed the right of privacy in sexual intimacy between consenting adults], and Obergefell [which required states to allow same-sex marriages and recognize those from other states]” - three cases dealing with Americans’ fundamental rights to privacy, due process and equal protection under the law. And we haven't even talked about Der Furor's open defiance of the law. If you don't think justice is going backward, you're not paying attention.

“Insure Domestic Tranquility.” You might believe that the storming of the US Capitol by a howling mob of Der Furor's supporters on January 6th, 2021, was a one-time thing, but I wouldn’t bet on it. When a large portion of the population is fired up by a relentlessly authoritarian president and his cowed Congressional supporters, Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, and believes its political opposition is nothing more than Satan-worshiping radical left libtards and pedophiles hell-bent on destroying the nation, domestic tranquility is most assuredly not insured.

“Provide for the Common Defence.” We have the most powerful military on Earth to protect us from external threats. Within our borders, however, we remain under threat from each other, exacerbated by a constitutional amendment that has made us the most heavily-armed citizens in the world, and animated by a belief that personal defense and individual rights trump all other rights and responsibilities. When angry militias are training in the wilderness, storming the Capitol, openly advocating violence against the government and their political opponents, and openly threatening elected officials and other public servants, providing for the common defense takes on a different meaning.

“Promote the General Welfare.” Unless the general welfare runs contrary to the interests of big business and the wealthy, that is. Der Furor's GOP is working hard to do away with what it disparagingly call the “deep state” that ensures your welfare ... that you have safe drugs, wholesome food, reliable products, a stable (more or less) economy, safe working spaces, drinkable water, and breathable air. Good luck with all those as federal agencies are stripped of the regulatory powers that have kept you safe and healthy in the fever dream of Republican fury at the "nanny state" and its "job-killing regulations."

“Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Many people nowadays interpret “liberty” as meaning “my personal liberty," rather than "our shared liberty.” The Declaration of Independence speaks of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as "unalienable rights," but your right to those things has become secondary to the perceived rights of those who want to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they choose. Our rights aren't unalienable after all ... just ask Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.

As a brand new Air Force Second Lieutenant in June of 1973, I swore this oath:

“I, Bilbo, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I swore my oath to the Constitution ... not to any individual. I swore my oath to an idea and a set of fundamental principles, not to a president, king, or dictator, and not to a pope, imam, rabbi, or patriarch.

Our poor, battered Constitution has served us pretty well for the last 236 years, but it's showing its weaknesses - not the least of which is how easily it can be subverted by those bold and wicked enough to openly ignore it or interpret its meaning in new and unsettling - when not blatantly illegal - ways. The weaknesses of the Constitution are, I believe, caused by the fact that its framers were honorable men who did not foresee the willingness of other evil and unscrupulous actors to undermine the government for which the founding generation had fought and died.  

So, how's the Constitution working out for you? If you're smart, you won't take its words of freedom and justice for granted. You'll support political leaders who uphold the grand words of the Preamble to the Constitution, who will work for all Americans, not just those of the preferred color (white), sex (male), or religion ("Christian"*). 

In the (paraphrased) words of former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, do not give in to the lies, and do not give in to the fear. Your country's future depends on it.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* It should be noted that most present-day "Christians" have only the most nodding of relationships with the actual teachings of Christ.

Thoughts on Elections

I don't know about you, but I'm really sick of hearing all the noisy, evidence-free whining about election fraud. So far, the only effect of all this horse-hockey has been to undermine public confidence in our elections and in each other, which is not a good thing for a functioning democracy.

How did we get here, and what can we do to fix it?

I'm no expert in constitutional law*, and I'm at best a well-read amateur historian and political commentator, but I've been working as a trained, certified, sworn Election Officer here in Fairfax County, Virginia, for more than ten years, which I think gives me a certain amount of credibility to comment on election law and procedures. All that being said, I think most of our electoral problems** stem from the Constitution - specifically, the first clause of Article 1, Section 4, which reads

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature*** thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators."

The obvious result of this unfortunate guidance is that we have 50 different sets of rules, regulations, and procedures to govern our elections†. This means that an observer accustomed to the procedures in their own state may look at the procedures in another state and misinterpret fully normal and legal actions as evidence of chicanery. 

Why was the Constitution written this way? I'm not sure what the historical record says, but I suspect it was to prevent some future, overly-powerful federal government from being able to dictate the results of state-level elections. 

The thing that wonders me about the wording of the Constitution, though, is that it specifies that the states control the times, places, and manner of elections for senators and representatives - not for the Presidency. 

I can tilt my head to one side, squint, and sort of see an argument for states to decide their own procedures for electing senators and representatives because of their individual needs, desires, traditions, and histories. For instance, Texans might want to settle election disputes by gunfire at high noon, where Oregonians might resort to logrolling contests, or Floridians to alligator wrestling. But when we talk about the election of a President who (theoretically) represents every single American and the nation as a whole, I think it makes sense to be uniform in our approach. How much of the flailing agony about whether to count absentee ballots before or after votes cast in person, or what the design of ballots should look like, or where the final tabulation of votes is conducted, could have been avoided if only the states all did things the same way?

I also think that we've gone so far in our attempts to prevent election fraud that we've made it easier to create forced errors that can create the illusion of fraud where none exists. For instance, here in Virginia we have very detailed and thorough procedures for making sure everything is secure and all the numbers add up. During the election process, we have very detailed guidelines of what sorts of identification are valid and what to do when there's any question of a voter's eligibility. When the polls close, we have agonizingly detailed and complicated procedures for squaring the number of voters checked in with the number of ballots issued with the number of ballots scanned by the voting tabulation machines. Every single ballot must be accounted for, every number needs to balance, and all the numbers must be painstakingly entered by hand into multiple forms for submission to various agencies. Every seal removed from every machine must be witnessed by at least two people, and returned to the correct office in the appropriate envelope. The numbers of every seal removed from or applied to anything must be certified by at least two people and carefully noted on the appropriate forms, which must be returned to the proper office in the correct envelope. Etc, etc, etc.

Can you see where there might be room for human error in all this?

All this folderol is necessary because the Constitution builds complication and uncertainty into our elections, because lawyers gotta litigate, and because power-hungry people have undermined trust in our electoral processes for cheap political advantage.

My recommendation: enact a law to standardize voting processes and procedures for presidential elections across all 50 states. Naturally, this would be difficult, because each state will want to keep its own procedures and force the others to adopt them. For this reason, a bipartisan national commission on voting standardization would need to be tasked with studying the problem and making a formal recommendation.

It's a bizarre fantasy, but you should see some of my other ones††.

Benjamin Franklin is reported to have answered a person who asked what sort of government the Founders were creating by saying, "A republic, if you can keep it." Sadly, at the rate we're going, we won't keep it much longer.

Have a good day. Vote carefully and responsibly. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* And neither are most of the people who howl loudest about what they think the Constitution says.

** Other than the quality of the candidates.

*** You may recall that we discussed the craziness of the "Independent Legislature" theory in a previous post.

† It's not only elections that are complicated by allowing each state to set its own rules ... consider our widely-varying standards of education (or non-education), medical care, firearms laws, etc, etc.

†† On second thought, you probably shouldn't.

The Unitary Executive and the Independent Legislature

There have been a lot of bizarre political theories advanced in the course of our national history, but two of the most bizarre and - in my opinion - dangerous have gained new currency in this era of conservative ascendence: the "Unitary Executive" and the "Independent Legislature."

The "Unitary Executive" theory maintains that all federal government power resides in the president, who has unrestricted authority to direct every aspect of the executive branch of the government independent of any oversight or challenge by the legislative or judicial branches. It has no basis in the Constitution as written*, but has been advocated by conservatives since at least the presidency of Richard Nixon and - especially - in the era of Der Furor.

The "Independent Legislature" theory, while legally dubious, at least has a tenuous connection to the Constitution, which delegates the power to administer federal elections to the states. The "Independent Legislature" theory grows out of an interpretation of how much power has been delegated to whom, and is based on interpretation of two relevant clauses in the Constitution. One is the Elections Clause (Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1), which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The other is the Presidential Electors Clause (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2), which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

The dispute hinges on the meaning of the word legislature.

Advocates of the Independent Legislature theory insist that legislature as written in the Constitution means exactly that - the elected legislature and only the elected legislature - and that laws enacted and decisions made by state legislatures are not subject to review, challenge, or oversight by any other state-level actors, such as governors or the courts.

Both of these theories are wonderful devices for ensuring full employment for lawyers and pundits, but are questionable ... if not idiotic ... on historic and philosophical grounds.

It strains credulity to believe that the framers of the Constitution, having just succeeded in gaining independence from a king with virtually unlimited powers, would even consider creating a president with unbounded royal authority - a "Unitary Executive." The entire concept of separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government argues against it.

The separation of powers also argues against the concept of an "Independent Legislature." In the absence of executive and judicial oversight, an independent legislature is no less threatening to fundamental freedoms than a "Unitary Executive." Any organ of government that can operate without challenge or oversight threatens the very nature of the government structure created by the Constitution, especially in states in which all three branches of the government are controlled by a single party.  

If you're looking for a convenient way to undermine the legitimacy of government and the truncation of our freedom, these two bizarrely un-American political theories are for you. Think about this when you decide how to cast your votes in the upcoming elections.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* This is conveniently ignored by those who insist on the doctrines of originalism and textualism when invoking the Constitution.

Updating the Requirements for Election

As I noted in my post last Wednesday, we have a problem with our elected officials in this country. You're shocked, I know. But the problem is not the obvious one of the despicable venality of some of those we've elected* ... the problem is that there's nothing to prevent them from getting elected in the first place.

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that the Constitution prescribes virtually no guidelines for eligibility for election to Congress, the Presidency, or the Vice-Presidency. Here are the current Constitutional rules on eligibility for office:

Article I, Section 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article I, Section 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Those are some pretty low bars under which the unqualified can limbo.

It's clear to me (and to other commentators smarter than I) that we need some better guidelines to weed out the venal, the incompetent, the traitorous, the criminal, and the just-plain-crazy** from running for the nation's highest offices. To that end, because I don't believe in bitching about a problem without offering a solution, here is my proposal for a Constitutional Amendment to place some updated requirements on office-seekers:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution is deleted and replaced with the following:

No person under twenty-five years of age and a citizen of the United States, whether native-born or naturalized, for less than seven years at the time of election shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. A person elected to the House of Representatives must, as of the date of election, have been a legal permanent resident of the district in which elected for at least five years.

Section 2.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 3, of the Constitution is deleted and replaced with the following:

No person under thirty years of age and a citizen of the United States, whether native-born or naturalized,  for less than nine years at the time of election shall be eligible for election to the Senate. A person elected to the Senate must, as of the date of election, have been a legal permanent resident of the State in which elected for at least five years.

Section 3.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution is deleted and replaced with the following:

No person under thirty-five years of age and a citizen of the United States, whether native-born or naturalized, for less than twenty years at the time of election shall be eligible for election to the office of President of the United States.

Section 4.

No person who is ineligible for award of a Top Secret security clearance, according to the requirements defined by the the Department of Defense as of the date of election, shall be eligible for election as a Representative or Senator, or to the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.

In order to expose potential improprieties or conflicts of interest on the part of elected officials, any person seeking election to the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidency, or the Vice-Presidency shall submit to the Judiciary Committees of both Houses of Congress and, through such mechanism as the Department of the Treasury may direct, to the people, full and complete copies of federal and state tax returns, both personal and for any businesses, for the ten years preceding the date of election.

Section 5.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I don't think these are overly onerous requirements for those who wish to be elected to offices in which they will make decisions which affect every American ... and, indeed, the world. Some might argue that the security clearance requirement is somehow discriminatory, but I think exactly the opposite; in fact, I think it would be easier for an average lower- or middle-class American to get a clearance because their financial and social situations would be less likely to be as complex and murky as those of the wealthy. And who could oppose weeding out those with criminal records? In addition, a clearance does not require or presuppose any particular level of education (although a good - not necessarily college - education is always a good thing). What do you think? What would you add or subtract? What would you modify? Why? Leave a comment.

I have shared this by letter with my Senators, my Representative, and the White House, where it will probably go into the "Letters from That Noisy Crank, Bilbo" file, but at least I'll feel good about having suggested something.

Have a good day. Demand more from your elected officials, but expect less. Sigh.

More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

* Think Der Furor, George Santos, etm.

** Yes, Empty G, Louie Gohmert, Ronny Jackson, etm, I'm talking to you.

Preamble, Shmeamble

The Preamble to the Constitution is one of our most famous and frequently cited pieces of American history. In case you need a refresher (and nowadays, most Americans do), here it is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A while back, in a post titled "So, How's That Constitution Thing Working Out for You?," I examined the stirring words of the preamble in light of current events and what today passes for civic behavior. Today, I offer a rewrite of the Preamble for an era the Founders would never recognize or accept:

We the Wealthy, White, Christian citizens of the United States, in order to preserve our political power, ensure justice appropriate to the race and economic station of each individual, insure domestic tranquility by militarizing the police and strengthening their qualified immunity, provide for the common defense by fully funding the defense industry, promote the general welfare insofar as such promotion does not create a culture of dependence which turns lazy individuals into public charges or limit the funding available for corporate welfare programs, and secure the blessings of liberty to those belonging to traditionally American racial, economic, and religious groups, do ordain and establish this updated Constitution for the United States of America. If you don’t like it, leave.

The chances of actually updating our entire Constitution to clean up the Founders’ errors and clarify their intent are less than zero, but updating the Preamble to bring it up to date is at least a start.

Have a good day. Be careful how you vote in November, or that change to the Preamble may come sooner than you expect.

More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

So, How's That Constitution Thing Working Out for You?

The 55 representatives - all of them male, all white and all privileged members of their society - who attended  the Constitutional Convention of 1789 drafted the United States Constitution to define the parameters of a new form of government for a new form of nation. 

The preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So, how’s that working out now, 233 years after the representatives to the Constitutional Convention slapped each other on the back and went home? Let's see ...

“Form a More Perfect Union.” We survived the Civil War more or less intact, but the union today is being torn apart by political passions inflamed by the power-mad and the religion-blinded. At a time when the nation faces huge problems and perils at home and abroad, Congress is paralyzed by the ability of an angry minority party to heap sand in the legislative gears and prevent action on all but the most mundane of issues. The Blue and Gray states of antebellum America have given way to the Blue and Red states of modern America. 

“Establish Justice.” We have a larger proportion of our population in prison than any other nation. The degree and quality of justice one can expect is directly proportional to one’s ability to hire the largest number of the most expensive, most aggressive, most experienced, and least principled attorneys. If you are black, brown, or poor, good luck. And whether or not you agree with the freedoms once granted by the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, consider that a strongly conservative Supreme Court has just ignored 50 years of precedent and - for the first time - actually removed a freedom we thought was guaranteed under the Constitution. And as if that weren't enough, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write that the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [which removed legal barriers to contraception], Lawrence [which guaranteed the right of privacy in sexual intimacy between consenting adults], and Obergefell [which required states to allow same-sex marriages and recognize those from other states]” - three cases dealing with Americans’ fundamental rights to privacy, due process and equal protection under the law. If you don't think justice can go backward, you're not paying attention.

“Insure Domestic Tranquility.” You might believe that the storming of the US Capitol by a crazed mob of Der Furor's supporters on January 6th, 2021, was a one-time thing, but I wouldn’t bet on it. When a large portion of the population is fired up by a monomaniac former president and his acolytes, Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, and believes its political opposition is nothing more than satan-worshiping pedophiles hell-bent on destroying the nation, domestic tranquility is probably not insured.

“Provide for the Common Defence.” We have a hugely powerful military to protect us from external threats. Within our borders, however, we remain under threat from each other, exacerbated by a constitutional amendment that has made us the most heavily-armed citizens in the world, and animated by a belief that personal defense trumps all other rights and responsibilities. When angry militias are training in the wilderness, storming the Capitol, and continuing to openly advocate violence against the government, providing for the common defense takes on a different meaning.

“Promote the General Welfare.” Unless the general welfare runs contrary to the interests of big business and the wealthy, that is. Many Republicans favor doing away with what they disparagingly call the “administrative state” that ensures your welfare ... that you have safe drugs, wholesome food, reliable products, a stable (more or less) economy, safe working spaces, drinkable water, and breathable air. Good luck with all those if federal agencies lose the regulatory authorities that keep you safe and healthy.

“Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Many people nowadays interpret “liberty” as meaning “my personal liberty," rather than "our shared liberty.” The Declaration of Independence speaks of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as "unalienable rights," but your right to those things has become secondary to the perceived rights of those who want to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they choose. Our rights aren't unalienable after all ... just ask Clarence Thomas.

As a brand new Air Force Second Lieutenant in June of 1973, I swore this oath:

“I, Bilbo, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I swore my oath to the Constitution ... not to any individual. I swore my oath to an idea and a set of fundamental principles, not to a president, king, or dictator, and not to a pope, an imam, a rabbi, or a patriarch.

Our poor, battered Constitution has served us pretty well for the last 233 years, but it's showing its weaknesses - not the least of which is how easily it can be subverted by those bold and wicked enough to openly subvert it. The weaknesses of the Constitution are, I believe, caused by the fact that its framers were honorable men who did not foresee the willingness of evil men (and women) to undermine the government for which the founding generation had fought and died.  

So, how's the Constitution working out for you? If you're smart, you won't take its words of freedom and justice for granted. You'll get out between now and November and look for candidates who are truly interested in upholding the grand words of the Preamble to the Constitution, who will work for all Americans, not just those of the preferred color (white), sex (male), or religion ("Christian"*). 

Vote as if your country's future depended on it. Because it does.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* It should be noted that most present-day "Christians" have only a nodding relationship with the actual teachings of Christ.

Constitutional Heresy

Let us begin, Dear Readers, with these stirring words from the preamble to the Republican Platform 2016 -

"We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant."

With all due respect to those who view the Constitution as Muslims view the Quran - that it is absolutely true and perfect in every detail - I think you're wrong.

I'm getting ready to lay out the heretical case for updating the Constitution, so if you are one of those people whose heads explode at the very thought of tinkering with The Most Perfect Document Ever Devised By Man*, you may want to read something else. But if you are willing to consider some alternatives to the belief that the Founders delivered the Constitution like Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, read on.

First of all, consider this: if the Constitution were not written to allow some flexibility and adaptiveness to changing times, why did the Founders make provisions for its amendment (Article V)? The amendment process was made cumbersome and difficult to discourage frivolous changes (such as amendments to outlaw flag-burning or to define marriage according to religious dictates), but it nevertheless reflects the Founders' understanding that the United States would grow, develop, and change over time, and that the Constitution would need to be able to evolve with it.

Now, consider the issue of "states' rights." Leaving aside for a moment the politically and racially-charged interpretations of the term, let's look back at the document the Constitution replaced: the Articles of Confederation. Here's what Article II says -

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

This is echoed in somewhat watered-down tone in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says -

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This reflects the delicate balance the Founders struck between the Federalists, who believed a strong central government was necessary to hold the country together, and the Anti-Federalists, who wanted to centralize power at the state and local level. The Federalists won the day, more or less, because the experience of trying to mold thirteen squabbling, quasi-independent states into a single nation required establishment of a government that could force them into some semblance of united action at the national level. We see the end result of the Anti-Federalist influence today, in the form of 50 states with a patchwork of uncoordinated and often conflicting laws and regulations that frequently inhibit interstate commerce and sow confusion in national decision making ... consider the wide variety of state laws governing elections as one example. Should we rethink the division of power between the federal government and the states? It's worth discussing.

And while we're at it, how are powers reserved "to the people?" Individual states have governments that can assume powers, but how do "the people" take on and execute powers of government?** And who are "the people," anyhow? Citizens? White citizens? Christians? It depends on who you ask, and the Constitution doesn't seem to be too clear on it.

Of particular interest in an election year, the Constitution does not allow for the direct popular election of the President, but rather by the electors of each state (Article II, Section 1, as modified by the 12th Amendment). This arrangement was created by the Founders because they didn't completely trust in the wisdom of "the people," and wanted to ensure that the nation was not governed by a tyranny of the majority. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 that

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." ***

Is this still a valid concern? Should the Constitution be revised or amended to provide for direct popular election? I don't know, but the question comes up every four years, and is probably worth debating.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech ... but are campaign contributions "speech?" It also says Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but is limiting the rights of one person because of the religious beliefs of another allowable under the Constitution?

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." What is an unreasonable search in an era of signals intelligence, GPS tracking, warrantless wiretaps, data mining, and imaging drones?

As long as we're making hamburger out of sacred cows, how about rethinking the Second Amendment? The amendment as written is confusing in one part (what does "a well-regulated militia being necessary" mean, anyhow?) and perfectly clear in another ("shall not be abridged"), and the courts that conservatives hate so much have come down fairly consistently on the most generous^† interpretation of the language. Political and social pressures combine to make any discussion of limiting gun rights all but impossible, but there is precedent for amending amendments - consider that the Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition as part of the supreme law of the land (the Constitution), but the Twenty-First Amendment repealed it just 13 years later ... recognition that Prohibition might not have been a good idea after all. One of my more conservative friends recently commented on Facebook that the way to approach "gun control" would be to propose a Constitutional amendment and work through the amendment process to see if it could get enough support to be adopted. This is, of course, the right way to do it ... but in the America of 2016, where there are more guns than people, Congress has gone so far as to specifically forbid even the study of gun violence as a public health issue, and the gun lobby views any discussion in apocalyptic terms, it's not likely to get off the ground. You might as well get used to kevlar as a fashion accessory and active shooter drills as part of the education of our children.

I think it's time to recognize that it's 2016, not 1789, and call a new Constitutional Convention to update our founding document. Unfortunately, the times are such that it would probably be impossible to gather a group of well-informed, thoughtful citizens willing to calmly discuss issues of such critical importance ...

But compared to some of my other fantasies^††, I think it's worth a try.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Well, except for those parts about slavery that were in the original.

** Yes, yes, I know ... by voting to elect the government that exercises the power on their behalf. But that's not quite what the Tenth Amendment says, is it?

*** I wonder what he would make of Donald Trump.

† From the gun advocates' perspective, anyway.

†† Trust me, you don't want to know.

The Things Parties Believe In

I read an interesting article by Mike DeBonis in the Washington Post last Friday - House Speaker Torn Between Principles, Duty to His Party*. The article analyzes the dilemma in which House Speaker Paul Ryan finds himself as he tries to stay true to his conservative credentials while figuring out how to work with presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, who appeals to many conservatives even though his conservative credentials are, to say the least, confused.

The entire article is interesting and worth reading, but this quote from Speaker Ryan caught my attention:

“Look, there are just things we really believe in as conservatives ... We believe in limited government. We believe in the Constitution. We believe in the proper role of the differences in the separation of powers. We believe in things like life … These are things that are important to us.”

Let's look at this piece by piece:

1. "We believe in limited government." That's true - conservatives hate big government, but everyone - including conservatives - wants it to do certain things. Conservatives want the government to stay out of the way of business, but support policies that benefit businesses and the wealthy. Limitations on government appear to apply only to those things the government does that assist average citizens.

2. "We believe in the Constitution." The implication, of course, is that everyone not a conservative doesn't believe in the Constitution. This is, of course, nonsense. Anyone who has studied American history knows that the Constitution as it was originally written was the product of endless argument and gritted-teeth compromises among various factions representing powerful central government, weak central government and strong states, manufacturing and trade vs agrarian principles, free states vs slave states, etc. The Constitution that we worship today was never a monolithic statement of unchanging principles, but the end result of what could be achieved through consensus among bitterly divided factions. For a useful primer on all of this, read the recent book by Fergus Bordewich titled The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government.

3. "We believe in the proper role of the differences in the separation of powers." The Constitution established a government structure with three independent parts: Legislative (to write the laws), Executive (to carry out the laws), and Judicial (to interpret the laws). This recognized the principle of separation of powers, allowing the three branches of government to balance each other and preventing any one of them from accumulating too much power. This, of course, assumed that the three branches of government would generally work together in the common interest ... which is not the situation in which we find ourselves today. What happens when, as today, the Congress is totally deadlocked and inflexibly opposed to the agenda of the elected president? The Legislature is enraged when the president attempts to make things happen by exercising independent executive authority (whether explicitly authorized by the Constitution** or not), and when the Judiciary attempts to do things the Legislature cannot or will not do***. What we see today is not the separation of powers envisioned by the Founders, but the exercise (or lack of exercise) of Constitutionally-granted powers because of political spite.

4. "We believe in things like life." The implication is that everyone other than conservatives opposes life. This is ridiculous and a distortion of the legal and moral quagmire that is the "right to life vs right to choose" argument. Without wading into a hopeless discussion of the moral, legal, political, and religious debates over the subject, let's just accept as a given that conservatives in general approach the issue from a religious/moral perspective, and liberals approach it in general from a woman's freedom of choice perspective ... and freedom of choice is, oddly enough, a generally conservative position.

The point that I'm trying to drive home in my own windy way is that neither Republicans nor Democrats have a monopoly on Constitutional interpretation. The two parties have fundamentally different paths to the same goal: a representative government, based on law, that works on behalf of the people who elected it. Republican political and economic philosophy focuses on the betterment of conditions for business and the wealthy, on the assumption that such policies will ultimately benefit everyone^†. Democratic political and economic philosophy, on the other hand, focuses on policies that stress inclusivity and universal economic and political opportunity as a way of improving conditions for all.

There are probably areas in which the two parties might be able to agree, but they're so busy demonizing each other and engaging in cheap point-scoring and deliberate distortions of each other's positions that such agreement is unlikely. If nothing else, agreement of any kind with the other side (particularly a Republican accused of the rank heresy of agreeing with a Democrat) leads to the individual being ostracized and sidelined in favor of someone more politically and socially extreme.

It's going to be a long, hard ride to the election in November, and the new administration that takes charge next January will have its work cut out for it. If the Democrats win the White House and the Republicans keep control of Congress, just buy more booze and hunker down for the next four years.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* That was the print title. The online title is different.

** See Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

*** This is that gawdawful "legislating from the bench" cry screamed by whichever side's political ox is being gored.

† The "rising tide lifts all boats" argument, also known by the somewhat disingenuous name of "trickle-down economics."

Let's Be Honest, Shall We?

I had a frightening thought while I was in the bathroom the other day*.

In this crazy time in American history, a lot of people are espousing all sorts of ideas, wrapping themselves in the Constitution as if they knew what it said other than “God says you can have all the guns you want.” We have people who want to be president advocating blatantly unconstitutional actions**, and we have sitting senators glibly spreading a quasi-Constitutional gloss over transparently political maneuvers***.

The frightening thought I had on my porcelain throne was this: if even our elected leaders, and those who seek the nation’s highest office, either don’t understand or choose to ignore the Constitution they invoke so piously, we’re screwed.

I thought about this in the context of the oath I took as a brand new Air Force Second Lieutenant in 1973, that I re-took with each promotion over the next 23 years, and that I administered to my son on his commissioning in the Air Force:

"I (name) do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." ^†

Military officers do not swear allegiance to the nation, the President, or the Congress … we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We take this so seriously that many officers stationed here in Washington, DC, choose to take their oaths in front of the actual Constitution, which is on display in the National Archives.

Enlisted personnel take an oath of enlistment which also invokes the Constitution, but is different from the oath taken by officers:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." ^††

The major difference is that enlisted personnel swear also to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me. The reason is, of course, that military discipline requires soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who will not just blindly follow orders, but will follow orders according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specific mention of the President underscores the tradition of civilian control of the military … you may recall that the Constitution specifies that the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2).

Now, we’ve established that military personnel swear allegiance to the Constitution rather than to the President or Congress, and that’s a good thing. But what happens when those at the highest levels – as I wrote above – either don’t understand or choose to ignore the Constitution that they invoke so piously. Who interprets what the Constitution actually means?

Under our system of government, Congress makes the laws, the President executes the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. This means it’s the Supreme Court that provides the interpretation when required … most certainly not Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell^†††, or John Cornyn.

Senators, if you want to play political games, go ahead. But be honest about it … don’t drape the Constitution on your ploys like cheap festoons on an idol. By doing so, you insult those who take their Constitutional responsibilities seriously ... and who, unlike you, run the risk of dying for them.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Don’t laugh … it’s where I do some of my best thinking.

** Yes, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, I’m talking to you.

*** Yes Senators McConnell and Cornyn, I’m talking to you. And yes, I’m sure many of you can quote lots of Democratic senators who have done similar things … which, of course, excuses the present bad behavior.

† The language is specified in law: 5 USC 3331.

†† The language is specified in law: 10 USC 502.

††† Speaking of Senator McConnell, you may not have been aware that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the approvals of the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses are required as a qualification for service on the Supreme Court.

Should We Revise the Constitution?

I got into a bit of a testy discussion on Facebook a few days ago that I think is worth writing a little about.

In response to a comment made by my friend and fellow local blogger Buggie on her Facebook page, I suggested that it might be time to consider revising the Constitution, although I acknowledged it was unlikely ever to happen because of the huge differences of opinion between the left and the right.

Another reader responded to my comment this way:

“We already have a legal process to amend the Constitution, Bilbo. There's absolutely zero reason to modify (or in any other way desecrate) the original. Amend it or abide by it... those are your options. I'm actually afraid to ask how you would like to ‘revise’ it...”

I had a bit of trouble with his use of the word desecrate, but I replied thusly:

“… (y)ou are correct in that there is a legal process in place for Constitutional amendments. We've used it 27 times so far. But the result of more than 200 years of litigation, interpretation (by the courts and by people who are absolutely sure that THEY and they alone knew what the Founders meant), the passage of time, and the evolution of technology and social ideas have led to an increasing disconnect between what the Constitution (says) and its applicability. As a guide for the structure and function of government, it is without equal in the world. As a guide for the drafting of laws applicable to the 21st century, perhaps not so much. I do have some ideas as to how it ought to be revised or amended, which I will post in my blog in the next few weeks. Until then, just think about it dispassionately.”

This was the individual’s reply:

“Again, revision is simply not an option. If there is a problem with its interpretation -- from ones personal perspective, of course -- the amendment process is still perfectly suited for any century. I've sworn to defend the Constitution for over 20 years, so there is little chance that men and women like me will ever allow anyone to "revise" it, or that we'll ever think about it dispassionately.”

I think I have a problem with the phrase revision is simply not an option. My interlocutor said he’d “sworn to defend the Constitution for over 20 years.” As it happens, so did I (for 23 years), as an officer in the Air Force. Let's take a minute to review the oath he and I both took and note what it actually says:

“I (insert your name here), having been appointed an officer in (insert branch of service here) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”

The oath does not say, “the Constitution of the United States as written in 1787,” or “the Constitution of the United States as amended” … it says, “the Constitution of the United States.” The important thing is that we swear the oath to the founding ideals of the country, rather than to a president, a political party, or some tightly-wound religious leader.

I don’t think a calm, clear-eyed look at the case for amending, revising, or completely rewriting the Constitution constitutes desecration of the original. Indeed, the Founders recognized that their document would need to be amended periodically as conditions changed, and they provided a vehicle by which it could be amended (Article V). They were idealists, but they were realists as well, and I don’t believe they would have objected to revising the document if circumstances warranted.

What would I change? Well, nothing about the basic structure of the government … the concept of three branches maintaining checks on each other’s powers is sound and worth keeping unchanged. But there are some things I believe definitely need changing. Here are just three to start the discussion:

First, I’d eliminate the electoral college and go with direct election of the President by popular vote. None of the arguments for the electoral college system, in my opinion, hold water any more (if, in fact, they ever did). All it does is marginalize the voters in the small states.

Second, I’d specify that Congressional districts align with existing political boundaries: counties/parishes and, where necessary, lower-level municipal borders (townships/boroughs, towns, etc). This would help eliminate the stupidity of districts which are ridiculously gerrymandered to protect the primacy of a single party, rather than the interests of the electorate as a whole.

Third, in Article I, Section 8, I'd revise the government’s responsibility “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads” to include the responsibility for the facilitation and regulation of electronic communication (something that we can all agree has changed radically since 1787). And speaking of electronic communication, how ought we to clarify the government's responsibilities and limitations on "unreasonable searches and seizures?" ... I don't think anyone in 1787 saw the NSA coming, or GPS tracking, or imaging from satellites.

I'm not touching the Second Amendment, because there's no point in trying to have a rational discussion about it. To many people, the Constitution consists of the Second Amendment and a bunch of other stuff.

I don't think there's anything horrible about considering revising the Constitution to keep up with the times. The amendment process outlined in Article V allows for tweaking the document as needed, but I think we at least need to have a rational discussion about whether or not larger changes are needed. The chances of fully rewriting the Constitution are probably less than zero, but it's the discussion that's important.

What do you think? Leave a comment. But avoid words like desecrate, please.

Have a good, Constitutional day. Come back tomorrow for some thoughts about Christmas.

Bilbo

P.S. - As long as we're talking about the Constitution, did you know that Article I, Section 8, gives the legislative branch the responsibility “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” My word, it sounds as if the Founders, seen by many on the right as the infallible font of all political wisdom and defenders of unrestricted freedom, are saying that the government can send those jackbooted thugs everyone worries about against lawbreakers and insurrectionists … who would have thought?