Add it all up, and then ask yourself the Big Question: Exactly what is it we’re protecting by not having a Constitutional Convention and revamping the whole ball of wax?
Few people know this, but there are actually two ways to amend the United States Constitution.
The first is the only one we have ever used. Congress puts an issue to a vote, and if it passes muster at the Federal level, it’s off to the states for ratification or rejection.
The second way is summarized nicely by Wikipedia:
Besides the more common method, there is an option to assemble a national convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. Article V of the Constitution requires the Congress to "call a convention for proposing amendments" . . . "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states." With 50 states presently in the Union, there must be applications made by lawmakers in at least 34 states in order to trigger this alternative procedure. The convention to propose an amendment (or amendments) has no ratification powers; it may only draft and propose the amendment(s), which must then be ratified by either the state legislatures or smaller conventions conducted within the individual states.
For years this second option was avoided like the plague for fear of ruining the very document it proposed to strengthen and protect, namely the United States Constitution. Unlike “Option One,” which puts forth a single amendment for consideration, there is nothing to prevent a national convention from looking at every paragraph, clause and semicolon in the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the impetus could be, say, to further refine and/or define the succession to the U.S. presidency, but it could end up modifying or eliminating all together each one of the Bill of Rights, every other previous amendment to the Constitution, and any/all provisions within the main body of that document itself.
As a wet-behind-the-ears poli sci major in college, I was horrified at the thought that based on the whims of the times we might end up tinkering with the right to free speech. That right is sacrosanct in American political history, and more than any other provision embodies the essence and distinctiveness of the U.S. Constitution. If not free speech, then a Constitutional Convention run-amok could trash the right to a fair trial, restrict the right to vote, place undue restraints on the exercise of commerce and free trade, and harm the country in a number of other ways.
But then Congress decided a couple of years ago that it didn’t like being criticized and passed something called “Campaign Finance Reform.” [Note to file: The more egalitarian and uplifting the name of a particular piece of legislation, the more insidious and venal its intentions usually are. That’s one way to know what to support and what not to support based on a cursory review of a typical hundred-plus page bill -- loaded with earmarks and special provisions masquerading as high-minded principles. But I digress.]
Anyway, like most reasonable people who looked at the First Amendment and understood not only what it said, but what it meant,1 I was sure that the Supreme Court would strike this bill down as patently unconstitutional. But they didn’t, and now George Soros can spend millions of dollars trashing what I believe, but I’ll go to jail if I give too much support to a political candidate or political party that represents my views.
Then of course there was the case that made it all the way to SCOTUS (which, by the way, kind of decided a couple hundred years ago that it was the final word on all subjects constitutional, even though the Constitution itself didn’t exactly give them this specific authority) where some homeowner objected to having his land taken from him by the state to give to a private developer. The Kelo decision tossed that one out the door, using the precedent where states can deny personal property rights for the common economic good. Yeah, sure, a new shopping mall will probably result in more local tax revenue than Joe Schmo’s three bedroom split-level, but that’s not the point. Thanks to Kelo, there’s virtually nothing a State can’t do to you, or your property, if some bureaucrat thinks the net effect will be better for his paycheck and pension plan.
Add to this the “right to privacy” that can’t be found anywhere in the Constitution but exists anyway in the mind of the Court, and the right to abortion that flows from this hypothetical right to privacy, and a few dozen other diminutions of what it means to act as the Commander-in-Chief independent of Congressional permission (the War Powers act), conduct interstate commerce (if you assemble and sell your product entirely in Kansas, but breathe air from neighboring Missouri, you’ve just engaged in “interstate commerce” and are thus subject to Federal regulation), and so on, and so on.
Add it all up, and then ask yourself the Big Question: Exactly what is it we’re protecting by not having a Constitutional Convention and revamping the whole ball of wax? Sure, the nuts on the Left will try to toss out the Second Amendment, and in light of the shoddy education most people receive today about politics, economics, and other formerly-important issues (see my Looney Liberal Chronicles, Chapter 1), they might just succeed.
But then again, despite what Chuck Schumer and the national media tells us, the majority of people in this country are opposed to abortion, and don’t want to see their taxes constantly raised by Congress to pay for social spending experiments, and would probably support a fairer system of free speech and religious expression than we have at the present (including placing restrictions on media attempts to influence national elections by deliberately misreporting or ignoring crucial facts).
So in the end, we’d probably come out ahead on most of the issues that are important to the future of the country. Sure, the resulting Constitution wouldn’t have the hallowed history that the document created in 1787 can lay claim to. But to cite one of my favorite lines from My Cousin Vinnie, “so I ax you, what difference does it make what kind of clothes the sonofabitch was wearing [when he shot Bambi’s mother]?” Bambi is still dead, regardless.
The hallowed history of today’s Constitution counts for virtually nothing in protecting the rights we all thought were perfectly clear when we read the original document. In the blink of a political eye 5 members of the Supreme Court can invent a new hypothetical “Right” that supersedes the old written-down Right, or define any term so broadly that it has literally no meaning at all.
Thomas Jefferson is rumored to have said that a good fire every 10 years is a great way to keep democracy alive. It clears out the deadwood and thins out the underbrush, and in so doing lets the world renew itself. We clearly don’t need to put a match to the Constitution, for even with its flaws there is nothing to equal it in human history. But we can put a match, metaphorically speaking, to the deadwood of thoughts that has plagued this nation the past forty years and turned many of these hallowed principles on their head.
It’s time to renew faith in the Constitution by renewing the Constitution itself. Rather than bleed it to death slowly as a “living document” that succumbs to every whim and fancy of the 9 Supreme Court Justices and their political followers, let’s make it completely relevant again and have it reflect, once more, the true thoughts and aspirations of the people of this country.
Endnotes
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Phil,
In a logical, reasonable world, you would be right. However, this new constitution would put us right back in the same position as we were before: a progressively meaningless assemblage of words subject to the whims of judges, big-dollar lawyers, and every conceivable manner of riff-raff and kook with their hand stuck out expecting you and me to fund their sexual predilections.
What I think we really need is these two things:
1) Make it easier to impeach judges for violating original intent
2) Elect congressmen who have the backbone to defend the constitution and return government to its boundaries.
Until these happen, the constitution, with whatever wording it happens to contain, is irrelevant.
“…. the costitution, with whatever wording it happens to contain, is irrelevant.” Is there anything more saddening in the country than this? Is there anything more true than this?
To reiterate Mountain Man, the grand scheme of a Constitional Convention is great in theory, but talk about the foxes guarding the hen house. The lawmakers of 1776 still have more interest in protecting the people of the United States than the officials of today- and they’re dead. The laws we have on the books provide adequate protection- I see little need to change them, what has happened is a complete disregard for them in favor of political leanings. Which leads to the question of why and how did this happen?
I believe this started from an act of courage to end slavery and remain an UNITED States. President Lincoln in an honest attempt to save a nation was the President who layed the ground work to destroy it when he did not use the rule of law and the constraints of the constition in our most prominent example of States versus Federal rights. He took the power of Federal Government and forced one group of people’s (abolisionist) onto another(slave owners and state’s rights protectors), instead of changing the consitution they way the system was designed to work. I admire President Lincoln second only to Reagan, but his belief that the constitution was “not a suicide pact” has proved to be a grave error. His goal of ending slavery and preserving nation was achieved, and I have no idea what condition this country would be in without his leadership. His correct decisions however paved the way for the Commerce Clause and total break down of any State Rights, once a sacred belief designed in the constitution. I wonder what President Lincoln would think if he knew his decisions would be the foundation by which the Federal government can control 30 percent of one’s income and so invasive they can force you what to wear (seatbelt).
Please, I do not want to hear I am a racist for my views on State Rights- anyone who has read my posts would no this is not the case. I am simply pointing out how in an attempt to do the right thing, President Lincoln broke the constaints of the constitution and the country is still paying that price.
I apologize for my incorrect grammar and word usage (no instead of know) within my previous posts, it is still difficult to proofread on this site with the screen limitations.
Why would we want to have a Constitutional Convention with all that pesky openness and accountability when we can just destroy the original document and impose our political ideals as we see fit through a veritable judicial tyranny? That’s WAYYYYY easier and more convenient than going to all that trouble. I mean think about it, you’d have to drag all those representatives all the way to Washington, have real discussions and propose actual original thoughts and ideas, then put the voters to all that inconvenience ratifying a whole bunch of new rules that are, like, really long, and like, who cares anyway, you know?
“‘The Big Question’: Exactly what is it we’re protecting by not having a Constitutional Convention and revamping the whole ball of wax?”
That notion that the people are incapable of self-government and that we need philosopher kings to tell us what’s best for us.
sedonaman — actually, I’d conclude the opposite, if I understood your point correctly. SCOTUS has set itself up as a philosopher king, which is precisely the problem. What we need is to return to the original intent of this exercise: to set down a system of laws and procedures that embody agreed-upon universal principles, and from these guideposts construct the myriad of lesser laws and procedures we need to run this nation. We need to remove the ability for the creative “interpretation” of the Constitution and demand that changes be enacted according to the processes outlined in that document (i.e. via an act of Congress as ratified by the States). A constitutional convention could severely circumscribe the power of SCOTUS to do this unilaterally, in addition to re-defining what the public accepts as appropriate interpretations of existing Constitutional provisions. Phil
Old Chinese proverb say: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Before suggesting we scrap our Constitution and start over we should be asking ourselves two things: a) is it more broken than not, and b) are we likely to wind up with a product more to our liking … or less?
This one has been run up the flagpole at least once every other election cycle. The main difficulty I see with it is that, if we scrap the Constitution, whatever replaces it will reflect mainstream consensus of what’s wrong with the country; not the considered opinion of those engaged in practical political thought. Right now, that includes far too many people who are ignorant of or hostile to true libertarian principles, and much too enamored of the nanny state. Many are Marxists who will pull us farther left than even the Supremes have managed; and will accomplish this regardless of any true consensus simply because the noisiest wheel gets all the grease. But some are also erstwhile conservatives equally enamored of big government; they just emphasize a different set of programs government ought to provide. Most conservatives are people who aren’t all that political. They are busy, productive people with little time to be concerned with machinations of government, and it takes a lot to get their attention. This has always been the radical-left’s strength, and why they get so much of what they want over the objections of moderates either side of the aisle. So before you tamper with the Constitution, you want to be sure you have an overwhelming consensus (greater than 75%) not of all the people, but of all those you know will vote.
One reason people think we need to scrap and start over is that our system of checks and balances (and other protections) don’t seem to work. But that is not the fault of the Constitution, it is the fault of people who allowed government to exceed its bounds and get away with it; and having too readily approved an amendment allowing direct and unrestricted taxation without regard to source (16th Amendment). What makes us think this new Constitution, full of modern socialist novelties, will be adhered to any better. More than any other innovation, the 16th Amendment forever gave government sufficient power to ignore both the people and the states, except as to getting elected. With it, it has created the nanny-state that makes us so dependent we dare not upset the cart. With it, it intimidates us almost as surely as did the Soviets with their gulags (ask anyone who’s gone through an audit). When the states had some control over what the federal government could tax, any tendency to usurpation could be checked by the simple expedient of denying funds to the feds. We could even do this selectively, providing funds for legitimate objects and denying the illegitimate. States did not control all funding to the federal government, but enough the feds would think twice before getting high handed. Even our military was kept small prior to that and we had little worry our government could mass so much firepower it make nonsense of our 2nd Amendment. All that ended with the 16th Amendment, and, with it, the last vestiges of localism.
One final thought before we rush to swap Constitutions. The French have reworked their constitution (top to bottom) not once but 15 times; and have yet to get it right (and often made things worse). We have something that’s very close to right. When we wrote our Constitution there were few socialists around to muck it up. Today, Americans are much more like the 19th century French, and can be depended on to write in socialism. I have read most of France’s many constitutions and I have yet to see one I’d approve of; so also with the constitutions of Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Japan. It is virtually a miracle our founders did so well.
It was the first time a group of aristocrats had formed a government and turned it over to the people. The Constitution was designed by philosopher kings. The founders were classically educated. The framers understood history and the rise of the West. Most of all they understood the character of mankind. Many, if not most could read and write Latin and Greek; several Spanish and French. It was and still is the only design that promoted the absolute best in human character. It was also a first in that it was partially humanist and partially divinely inspired.
The biggest fault in the supreme law of the land is that there was no guarantee that the electorate; the sovereign citizen body would remain educated. Is our generation an improvement over the last? How about our framers? Are we a better and wiser generation than that of Hamilton, Madison and Franklin? The answer is obviously such that this country and the West in general has lost education for enough generations that we may have lost it forever.
We train marvelous professionals, M.D.’s, engineers, programmers and we have become smarter in our technological advances, agriculture, transportation and communications. We have dune buggies on the moon. Our cars are lasting 200K miles and are fortunate today to live in a literal utopia. Pessimistically, we most likely will not be able to keep it. We could accelerate our decline by not defending the Constitution and “starting over.”
We professionals have superb training, but very little education. We know not the consequences to humanity or this country or yo the utopia we inherited, of the things we think do or say. Our opinions are not worth spit if they’re not based upon a rational interpretation of the reality of history, language, economics, epistemology, logic, ethics, scientific principle and most of all an understanding of ourselves.
We therefore, are today incapable of producing, via a constitutional convention, anything of any use except to destroy, forever, the simplest, clearest and most profound law ever written that promotes the absolute best human kind has to offer, and which has created a literal utopia in the United States of America.
Mr. Stapler and WeThePeople:
I thought you both had some great, very thoughtful contributions to this debate. I actually agree with a lot of what you said, but we begin with a different point of analysis, and thus our differing conclusions.
Because the Court has turned the Constitution into a meaningless document (meaningless in the sense that it, now more than ever, is a reflection of the personal whims of the court, and is viewed by many politicians as little more than a political football to be manipulated for their own purposes — thus the abortion litmus tests for new SCOTUS nominees, as one example), I don’t think there is anything left to protect.
By keeping the fiction alive of a 200 + year hallowed document that actually operates today as a blunt political instrument, we assign magical status to Supreme Court decisions that prevent further debate. For example Roe v. Wade is now “settled law” and supposedly can’t be re-examined, even though it was built on a phony constitutional “right”.
Despite the points you raised above about the American citizenry, I don’t see any downside in starting over and asking the national questions about freedom of speech, religion, the right to “privacy”, etc. Since the convention would be a somewhat lengthy process, we’d have an opportunity to engender some real debate on these issues. I think that the American electorate is fundamentally conservative (the Dems won in 2006 by hiding their liberalism and running “conservative” candidates), and I think on balance we’d gain more than we lose.
The alternative is to simply keep things as they presently are, which means allowing 9 self-anointed overseers of the Constitution to cherry pick international law to support their personal agendas, and arbitrarily — without recourse to any change — continue to erode our free speech, private property, and other Constitutional rights.
When politicians do this we recognize it for what it is, and make decisions about their actions in the next election. But when the Court does this in the name of the Hallowed Constitution, it ends political debate. If the Court actually interpreted the Constitution instead of manipulated it, then a convention would be a bad idea. But since the Court has become just another political branch of government — this one though with absolute power — we risk losing more by preserving the fiction of an enduring constitution than by changing it to reflect the realities of today.
We may need a new convention every generation or so to guard against a repeat of the past. But that’s a small risk compared to institutionalizing the personal political agendas of at least 5 Supreme Court Justices as we are doing today, and putting those decisions in the same category as those made by the Founding Fathers.
I just came back to this article to read more of the discussion, and it’s brought up a question in my mind: If we can trust the electorate to ratify a re-designed constitution that more expressly represents the intent of the original, then surely we could just as easily pass a constitutional amendment limiting the term a Supreme Court Justice may serve, right? Or maybe an amendment that allows for more repercussions for Justices? Censure, impeachment, or removal made into a process that can be initialized by vote? The Supreme Court is solely responsible for the absolute bastardization of the constitution as we know it. We’re all in agreement to that. So if the people are by and large conservative, we can count on them to ratify an amendment like the ones proposed above, whereas a constitutional convention opens the floor to the so-called intellectuals and political philosophers of our time who would just as soon turn us into a Marxist state with all the power vested in “El Presidente”. Quantifiable qualifications for the position of Justice wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Like if you’re a vehement supporter of one political faction (you know, like an ACLU lawyer), or you have expressly stated that you intend to interpret the constitution with the aid of foreign law (both of which are true of Ginsberg), you don’t qualify. To me, this would solve most of the problems we have with our constitution being interpreted at whim by a gang of lawyers who may or may not have even read our original document, and at the same time, it removes the possibility of “fixing it until it’s broken”.
Patrick:
The problem as I see it with a one-off approach is that it’s done within the existing framework, which means that it implicitly recognizes and reinforces the alleged wisdom of all previous actions (i.e. interpretations) of the Constitution. All this extra baggage will play on people’s minds, and a lot of extraneous issues will impact the decisions of the people and the State Legislatures regarding limiting Court terms and/or jurisdiction. This will work against actually pulling the trigger and making the systemic changes you referred to, much like Roosevelt’s plan to add Supreme Court members in the 1930s failed because it was seen as too great a departure from the past.
As long as the Constitution itself is seen as sacrosanct, people will only tinker with it around the edges. The paradox today is that the Constitution is still sacrosanct in the people’s minds because of its place in history, while the practical application of it by the Court has rendered it just another political tool. Unless and until we force people to reexamine what the Court has done to it through a comprehensive Constitutional Convention, this dichotomy between myth and reality will prevent fundamental change.
What we need is an overhaul of the system, not a fine-tuning of it. In this sense, performing micro-surgery on a massively infected patient won’t solve the overall problem. A Constitutional Convention forces everyone to step back and look at the big picture, and using this as a basis, make the necessary across-the-board systemic changes and/or adjustments. Limiting Court jurisdiction in certain areas will undoubtedly help, but that in and of itself won’t remedy past political manipulations of the Constitution now enshrined as “settled law”. And focusing only on this one (albeit very real) aspect of the problem won’t lead people to look at the whole ball of wax, to borrow from my original piece.
Politicians and the Court have so screwed up the meaning and intent of the U.S. Constitution that I sincerely believe that we need to go back to basics and reinvent the document again. In doing so we’d adopt some of the tactical issues you alluded to above, but simply focusing on that one area without clarifying and fixing the other issues I spoke to in my essay won’t be enough to fix the problem.
Mr. Jackson:
You must have missed my point, but in doing so you have helped make it. The electorate and our elected incumbent oligarchy are neither educated nor wise enough to create anything close to the protection we all have as individuals from both the Government and any majority.
The first 100 years of this country was a Constitutional Supremacy phase where the document was what it said it was. Written in lay terms where anyone could understand, it limited government and protected the individual from the State and any subjective tyrannical majority.
Since around 1900 most of the amendments, and I must include the SCOTUS opinions as amendments, have legislated government power and limited freedoms for the individual. Here we can agree that the Supreme Court has converted us to a Supreme Legislative phase.
Whose fault is that? Theirs; or the liberal Presidents and Senate WE have elected? What is the causality of our current political situation? It’s not our official’s fault. It is us. WE are responsible for the current state affairs.
We Americans live today in arguably the most prolific economy in history and a literal utopia where all of our needs are provided for and our leisure time is abundant. To what do you attribute this success? What is the historical cause? Could it be our founding documents and the rule of law?
Mr. Jackson, you are no friend of freedom and I must call you out. Scrapping the most profound document and protector of rule of law, limited government, property rights, states rights and a representative-3-branch division of limited power shows a hatred for the best in humanity. It shows either your lack of knowledge of both history and the character of mankind or your hatred of individual accomplishment and the achievements we have realized as Americans.
If you can find nothing redeeming to the future of mankind in the Constitution of the United States, than you Sir are the enemy of man. Everyone who has sworn an oath (this is the honor system for you Liberals) to “uphold, protect, and defend…against all enemies foreign and domestic,” the Constitution, should do so, or publicly swear to oppose it.
This you have done.
WTP —
The Constitutional Convention option is part of the Constitution, so it can’t be anti-constitutional.
I’m always amused by people who make charges like you have. I’m somehow an “enemy of freedom” for wanting the people of the United States to return the Constitution to its original meaning and purpose through a constitutional convention. On the other hand, you say “The electorate and our elected incumbent oligarchy are neither educated nor wise enough to create anything close to the protection we all have as individuals from both the Government and any majority.”
So an “enemy of freedom” like myself wants the people to reaffirm constitutional democracy, while you, the consummate “friend of freedom”, think they’re too stupid and venal to be trusted with their own democracy?
Re-read my post #9. The politicians and political motivated Court justices have distorted the meaning of the founders in assigning us all rights and protections. This can’t be fixed piecemeal, because each new creative interpretation ties to other Constitutional provisions, and/or invents other rights to support their positions. All the doublespeak has to be disassembled and the original intent reassembled, and you can’t do this by picking at one scab while leaving the core infection untouched.
I’m sure you’re a sincere guy, and I said earlier that you had some good basic instincts and ideas. But in all honesty, you need to lighten up a little. There’s no need for hyperbolic rhetoric, particularly when you purport to call me out on my understanding of what the Constitution is or isn’t, when you clearly have a limited grasp yourself about the nature of a constitutional convention.
And if you do want to take me on, have the courtesy of actually quoting what I said. I never said we should scrap the Constitution and walk way. I said that the document has become perverted and distorted through political manipulations, and needs to be returned to its original purpose. You don’t win an argument by making up things about what the other guy actually said, particularly when your comments are attached to the original article!
Take a deep breath and examine what I actually said, and if you still disagree let’s continue the conversation. If not, at least think twice about challenging someone’s scholarship and credentials before you assert your own expertise.
Dr. Jackson:
You ask “what are we protecting?” The Constitution’s first fifteen amendments protect the individual from tyranny of the majority and from the State. The Constitution protects the individual’s inalienable right to self government. Most of all it protects Life. The Constitution also protects the Opinions of Mankind. Here I refer you to the Declaration, which was the promise. The Constitution was the fulfillment of that promise, and still is.
I must say, you have shown your true intent by your last reply to the most conservative commentary, yet, on your essay. I will agree, with all of the rhetorical tarts you came up with in the patronizing majority of your reply. However, like any Neo-con or Liberal or Moderate you have shown their greatest skill in avoiding…..again…. my point. By obfuscating a dialogue and attacking minor points of trivial or no importance, you manage to have no debate.
So, here I must confess. Now you have me, with my brain wide open to your superior wisdom, intellect and education, for I am just a simple man; a book collector and writer, so please teach me something, Patron, that I may have missed in my previously feeble attempt at making my point.
I do find it necessary to reiterate, the counter-thesis for a third time, but, first, perhaps I am mistaken in not finding honor in the words you use (please help me understand) to describe the U.S. Constitution such as:
“hallowed history of today’s Constitution counts for virtually nothing” and
“as a living document that succumbs to every whim and fancy of the 9…..lets make it completely relevant again and have it reflect….of the people of this country” and
“the Constitution into a meaningless document…..I don’t think there is anything left to protect;” then
“keeping the fiction alive of a 200+ year hallowed document that actually operates today as a blunt political instrument”
“we risk losing more by preserving the fiction of an enduring constitution than by changing it to reflect the realities of today”
Dr. Jackson you can’t disagree that the above statements demonstrate your lack of appreciation for the original document; and I must point to the German and Kantian moral relativism in your feelings illustrated by your last quote “changing to reflect realities of today.” This, plus the obfuscation shows your true “scholarly” credentials as being completely contemporary. I must refer you to “Closing of the American Mind” by your Allan Bloom. You should also ask for your money back, on your degrees as it is “hallowed” history that has something to teach us. Actually history can’t be hallowed or fiction as you say; it just is. But, learn it we must if we are to survive.
My major point had been in agreement with one of your original statements that the convention run-amok could indeed trash everything of value. I believe today, neither the citizen body nor ¾ of our State Legislatures are wise enough to accomplish what you say you desire which is a return to conservatism. What is lacking is a truly educated electorate. I do think, like Plato that a Democracy is unworkable, but a republic? Yes.
I would even venture that the true republican (republican has small “r” for Liberals) experiment and “contract” in Lockean terms, is yet to be run with a self-aware, cogent, informed and wise electorate.
What I propose is reform of education first, as without it even your thesis of a return to the original Constitution, un-amended by SCOTUS is doomed without the people keeping government in check through the electoral process, in perpetuity.
We could also accomplish the very thing you say with one simple Amendment. The new XXVIII Amendment would eliminate all amendments and SCOTUS rulings prior to 1896’s Plessy vs. Ferguson excepting XX and XXII Amendments. Simple, but short lived without a wise electorate.
Now I refer you to Benjamin Franklin, who upon concluding the original Constitutional Convention was asked “What have you wrought?” Franklin said “A republic if you can keep it.” Thus I stand by all of my previous statements, and I do welcome a rational debate, Sir.
WTP
My general rule is to explain something twice. After that the person is either unwilling, or incapable, of understanding the point. In this particular case, however, I’m beginning to suspect that there is a third option present, as I’ll note below.
As a quick side note, I’ve confirmed with friends that none of them are writing me under the pseudonym “We The People” as a joke, and that you are in fact a real person supposedly making serious points. This of course doesn’t mean that you yourself aren’t just having a little fun by making the statements and pronouncements you have. For the sake of discussion, I’ll assume that you are serious about what you are saying, and proceed from there.
Your “solution” to the problems I identified in my original essay is a “simple” Amendment wiping out 100+ years of Supreme Court decisions, except for a couple that you personally favor: “The new XXVIII Amendment would eliminate all amendments and SCOTUS rulings prior to 1896’s Plessy vs. Ferguson excepting XX and XXII Amendments. Simple, but short lived without a wise electorate.”
You said prior to 1896? You want to completely eliminate the Bill of Rights and the abolition of slavery? Or you meant after 1896? I’m sure all women and people under 18 will gladly give up the right to vote. On what planet do you think this will happen?
Assuming anyone can even understand what you’re actually proposing here, you want to prepare everyone for this constitutional reform with a nationwide “reform of education first” so the ignorant masses who you say are completely incapable of transforming into a “self-aware, cogent, informed and wise electorate” will see the wisdom of your “simple solution”.
What a crock! This has absolutely no chance of real-world success, regardless of which way one tries to make sense of your proposition above. The only benefit it has is to make you feel superior (to use your own language) to propose it. But in reality, it just makes you look silly.
You asked for a rational debate, but you approach it dishonestly. You sanctimoniously ask “perhaps I am mistaken in not finding honor in the words you use (please help me understand) to describe the U.S. Constitution such as:
“hallowed history of today’s Constitution counts for virtually nothing” and
“as a living document that succumbs to every whim and fancy of the 9…..lets make it completely relevant again and have it reflect….of the people of this country” and
“the Constitution into a meaningless document…..I don’t think there is anything left to protect;” then
Note to file: Always be a little suspicious of the guy who won’t provide a full quote of your words! Here’s the complete quote from my original article:
“The hallowed history of today’s Constitution counts for virtually nothing in protecting the rights we all thought were perfectly clear when we read the original document. In the blink of a political eye 5 members of the Supreme Court can invent a new hypothetical “Right” that supersedes the old written-down Right, or define any term so broadly that it has literally no meaning at all.
“Thomas Jefferson is rumored to have said that a good fire every 10 years is a great way to keep democracy alive. It clears out the deadwood and thins out the underbrush, and in so doing lets the world renew itself. We clearly don’t need to put a match to the Constitution, for even with its flaws there is nothing to equal it in human history. But we can put a match, metaphorically speaking, to the deadwood of thoughts that has plagued this nation the past forty years and turned many of these hallowed principles on their head.
“It’s time to renew faith in the Constitution by renewing the Constitution itself. Rather than bleed it to death slowly as a ‘living document’ that succumbs to every whim and fancy of the 9 Supreme Court Justices and their political followers, let’s make it completely relevant again and have it reflect, once more, the true thoughts and aspirations of the people of this country.”
You Sir, are not only a pompous jerk, but a dishonest one at that. You try to win a debating point by deliberately (and amateurishly) misrepresenting my views, and offer only self-contradicting nonsense as a “solution” to the problems I wrote about. It’s perfectly fine to disagree with the need for a Constitutional Convention, but your remarks are little more than self-congratulatory prattle that has no chance of every being implemented in the real world.
The fact that you would deliberately belittle anyone who disagrees with you rather than simply attempt to make your case tells us all we need to know about your character. I treated you initially with respect (response #9). You respond by calling me an “enemy of freedom” because I disagree with you. You haven’t responded to my original essay to debate the subject; you’ve simply used it as a forum to slander anyone who disagrees with you.
I have no problem calling a pompous jerk a pompous jerk, but unlike you, I let your own words (unedited by me) confirm the diagnosis first.
One final comment. You’ve challenged my credentials. Fine. I have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. I spent over 20 years working with legislation on a local, state, national and international (foreign treaty) level. I’ve built three highly profitable private sector businesses, and authored 4 books. My full bio can be found on my website http://www.scifi-jackson, including national recognition for my public affairs work.
So now let’s see yours. Where were you educated, and what degrees have you earned? You’re a “writer”, so what have you written? I’ve fully identified my own essays and books by name. Come out from the umbrella of anonymity and let us know who you are, and why your scholarly and practical-political education, experience, and writings demonstrate the superiority of your credentials.
Mind you, I never ask a person to justify themselves this way unless they raise the issue themselves. I have no clue what “credentials” many of the people have who routinely respond to my essays. And I don’t care. I’ve come to admire many of their thoughts, and even suggested in a previous essay that they should write articles themselves. For all I know they could be Ph.D.’s or community college dropouts. It wouldn’t matter because it’s their ideas — not their self-inflated sense of moral superiority — that drives the conversations.
You, on the other hand, are a bit of a clown masquerading as a self-anointed intellectual, and I’m happy to call you on it. Which is why I seriously doubt you’ll have the courage to now match your credentials against mine — even though you are the one who raised the issue.
My mistake for not proof reading my suggestion on Amending the Constitution as I meant to say eliminate everything with a few exceptions from a point prior to 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson (from this point) going forward, preserving the first 106 years of the Constitutional Supremacy phase of our rule of law. On this note, my point was that this solution, theoretically legal, is no more permanent or workable than a constitutional convention, because for the 4th time, our contemporary abilities, in general are so are flawed.
Well, Dr. I must say you have proven my points. Is this entire country lost in a perpetual state of adolescence, where no debate is possible and any disagreement, however, minor reverts to a contest of name calling and my dad or degrees and resume are bigger than your dad?
I attempted to debate, and did not pull back to PC language but let you have it with both barrels. If we are to blog or publish and hang it out in debate style for all to read, then we both need to be able to take it and dish it out without going back to Jr. High School bologna. My desire is to debate the issues and ideas but I’m thinking it may be nearly impossible to have a true rational dialogue. This is not about you, or about me it is about the ideas and the opinions of mankind. Some of which I have quoted. We are not in a classroom, but, on the web. Neither of our opinions is worth anything unless we can point to a rational interpretation of the reality we live in and its historical context. History matters; language and words matter; ideas matter; baseless opinions don’t matter, except where they show lack of knowledge and misperception.
I may be a jerk as I did try to push your buttons, and succeeded, however, not until you began this classroom style of lecturing and patronizing as if this was a teacher-student lecture where only your ideas have validity. But I saw a red flag that indicated your liberal bent and thus saw it necessary to challenge you and was successful in playing this game by having you reveal yourself, (manifestum reddere).
My mistake for not proof reading my suggestion on Amending the Constitution as I meant to say eliminate everything with a few exceptions from a point prior to 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson (from this point) going forward, preserving the first 106 years of the Constitutional Supremacy phase of our rule of law. On this note, my point was that this solution, theoretically legal, is no more permanent or workable than a constitutional convention, because for the 4th time, our contemporary abilities, in general are so are flawed.
It is as if I have been returned to Plato’s Cave, in that no debate is possible. Where are the men or women to stand up and say NO! Where are the true conservatives?
My intent is not dishonesty as I had referred to Plato, John Locke, Allan Bloom, The Declaration, Benjamin Franklin and Emmanuel Kant. In fact I have said nothing new that hasn’t been thoroughly discussed, (see the Federalist Papers & diaries of the Constitutional Convention) such that an educated person shouldn’t be at all surprised at my words.
Dr. Jackson, my intent was neither to misquote nor misrepresented your words. Yours are just a couple mouse clicks up the page for all to see. What I have done is expose your words and thought process for its true Liberalness and its incompleteness. What you have done is illustrate the very point of my counter thesis that we citizens are the problem and the solution; but we are not yet ready to rewrite the Constitution.
Your words demonstrate my points beautifully.
mens turbata
quod superest
“I may be a jerk as I did try to push your buttons”
**Yes, I know. That’s why I said you were a jerk not interested in honest debate.
“Dr. Jackson, my intent was neither to misquote nor misrepresented your words.”
** Like most pseudointellectuals you can’t win a debate by being honest, and you can’t admit to being dishonest when you’re called on it. You only have to go no farther than your first ‘honest’ quote. You sanctimoniously asked “perhaps I am mistaken in not finding honor in the words you use (please help me understand) to describe the U.S. Constitution such as: hallowed history of today’s Constitution counts for virtually nothing”
By ending the quote there, you deliberately misrepresented my words. It stands for virtually nothing “in protecting the rights we all thought were perfectly clear when we read the original document. In the blink of a political eye 5 members of the Supreme Court can invent a new hypothetical ‘Right’ that supersedes the old written-down Right, or define any term so broadly that it has literally no meaning at all. ” Sounds a little different now, doesn’t it? But then again, you understood that perfectly, which is why you had to cut the rest of the sentence to make your point.
And may I remind you, YOU are the one who challenged MY credentials, and when I called you on this, you refuse to edify us on your own — just as I predicted.
You’re a self-important clod too shallow to debate an issue with your own thoughts. And when you do, you can’t do it honestly. You’re a clown, which is why I can no longer take you seriously.
I’ll remain in the real world while you return to your “cave”. Some parting wisdom for you to help occupy your time.
master bata
allyou wana
(Why do I always get the high school kids who pretend to be intellectuals because they read a couple of books that they sort-of understand, or the self-anointed elitist defenders of the faith who think everyone but they are incapable of resolving important political issues?)
Wow! Haven’t checked this for a while, but, again another excellent example of our post-doc professoriate scholarship. A good look at a mature, adult and learned conservative as an illustration of divinely inspired human excellence.
A perfect Neo-con prototype, who makes my points better than I do, thanks.