« I laughed so hard I almost… | Home | Praying for our kids »
Do we really need a new Constitution?
By rawhide | October 10, 2007
Larry Sabato thinks so. The renowned political analyst writes in today’s Los Angeles Times that it’s time our Constitution adapted to the changing world we live in. Sabato says it’s not a radical idea, because it’s what the Founders did, and Jefferson said it should be done every generation. Not the most persuasive argument I’ve ever heard. In fact, the article was laced with arguments and ideas that I found to be ridiculous.
Sabato wants to make it easier to surrender and retreat:
The framers split authority concerning matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). Does anyone seriously believe that they would have approved of the executive department waging years-long wars without the explicit approval of the legislature? Yet the advantages accruing to any president — the unitary nature of the office, the swift action that only he can take in a hair-trigger world, his dominance of the televised public forum — have created an emperor as much as a president. The constitutional balance of shared war-making must be restored.
The president should have the freedom to commit troops for up to six months, under procedures similar to that of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. But a new constitutional amendment should require that after six months — and every six months thereafter — both houses of Congress, by affirmative vote and without filibusters, would have to approve any extension. If one house votes no on extending, all combat troops must be withdrawn within a year.
The framers structured the Constitution so that there would be only one commander-in-chief, not 535. How effective will our armed forces be if every congressman from North Dakota and senator from Wyoming can have as much authority as the president in making military decisions? How will our generals be able to wage a war when they have to pacify several hundred people looking over their shoulders? Unless Sabato wants to cripple our armed forces, this is a change that must never be made.
Sabato wants to expand the power of large states:
Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation’s people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states — and thus the unfairness — was far less.
But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let’s build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.
The framers were wise in creating a chamber — the House — based on population, and a chamber — the Senate — based on equal representation for every state. Sure, states like California are equal to states like Delaware, but that disparity exists to protect every state and every citizen. We don’t need large states running our government (House, Senate, Electoral College). A little compromise to work with the small states never hurt anyone.
Sabato wants to abolish the Electoral College and write primary dates into the Constitution:
Americans don’t have to be convinced that our presidential election system is broken. The nation needs a sensible system of rotating regional primaries so that it would no longer be subject to the selfish whims of a few states.
The electoral college also must be overhauled, with more populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based electoral college isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if the 2000 Florida recount had to be conducted nationwide.
If Sabato ever picked up a copy of our Constitution, he would realize that the word “party” is not found anywhere, and primaries are party affairs. It would be a horrible idea to write amendments to govern primaries. This is a state and party issue, not a constitutional issue. And if you’re going to overhaul the Electoral College to eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the White House while losing the popular vote, why have the Electoral College at all? Wouldn’t is just be easier to get rid of it completely? I am a strong proponent of the Electoral College. It has worked just fine.
Lastly, Sabato wants illegal immigrants to have the chance to become president one day:
We promote the cultural myth that any mother’s son or daughter can grow up to be president, but it isn’t even literally true.
The founders were concerned about foreign intrigue in the early days of an unsettled republic, so they limited the presidency to those who were “natural born” citizens. But the melting pot that is now the United States includes an astonishing 14.4 million Americans who were not born on U.S. soil and are therefore ineligible for the presidency — a number sure to grow substantially. Among them are 30,000 members of the U.S. armed forces who risk life and limb to defend those enjoying first-class citizenship.
Any American who has been a citizen for at least 20 years should have the right to aspire to the White House.
If Democrats (and Bush/McCain) get their way on immigration, illegal immigrants likely could become citizens in less than a decade. So it would be possible for someone to break the laws to enter our country, and one day be the chief enforcer of those same laws. That is another horrible idea.
Larry Sabato needs to stick to analyzing politics and not thinking of ways to rewrite our Constitution. Considering the turmoil of a Civil War, two World Wars, a Great Depression, and many other wars and crises that our country has endured, our Constitution has lasted better than the Founding Fathers could have ever imagined. The Constitution has worked for more than 200 years. We don’t need to throw it away now.
Topics: constitutional issues |
October 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
does this guy have a life?
October 10th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
You must be talking about rawhide…
October 18th, 2007 at 2:27 am
[…] about at Do we really need a new Constitution? - cr nation, - Last Updated - 12 minutes ago Follow This Story Change […]