The proposed EU Constitution is as thick as a phone book. There is no reason to think that a new US Constitution would be any less unweildy.
Posted on 11/01/2007 6:32:47 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times on October 10, 2007, University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato argues for scrapping our Constitution and replacing it with a new one. He couldn’t be more wrong.
In support of his call to redo the Constitution, Sabato trots out a quote from Thomas Jefferson positing that a constitution is only good for nineteen years. The quote comes from a letter Jefferson sent to James Madison on September 6, 1789. In his response, Madison raised several fundamental flaws to Jefferson’s (and Sabato’s) reasoning. The one most applicable to our times is this one: “Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions that might not otherwise come into existence, and agitate the public mind more frequently and more violently than might be expedient?” Does Sabato really believe that in 50-50 America, we would have any chance at compromising on a new constitution? After all, each side will try to inject its own solution to the “intractable challenges” that Sabato laments.
Even if we could, does Sabato really think we should throw-out the Constitution every nineteen years? If not, why rely upon Jefferson’s quote other than to get the kind of constitution he and the liberal-progressives would prefer? While Sabato only wants to change a few provisions, others will aim to change the parts Sabato thinks are okay. Such a process would wreak havoc on one of the strongest aspects of our Republic – the predictability and stability surrounding our rule of law (not to mention treaties). With the rule of law susceptible to changes every nineteen years, there would be little basis for investors to trust our financial markets, for people to feel secure in their property, and, most critically, for the people to feel secure in their rights. Jefferson was one of our greatest Founding Fathers and a brilliant man, but let us not forget that he was still only a man – susceptible like all of us to bad ideas.
The four “horribles” that Sabato cites as reasons we need to ditch the Constitution are largely baseless. First, Sabato calls for the need to restore “the war powers balance.” Under the Constitution, the crisis for which Sabato seeks to undo 220 years of history can be dealt with quite simply – the Congress has the power of the purse so can refuse to fund a war it has not authorized, which would force the Commander in Chief to end the war. Now, that would take courage, which most politicians today lack, but an absence of political courage should never be the reason we undo the foundation of our country.
Next, Sabato wants to end the “second-class citizenship” that he thinks exists because the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born American. At our current population count of 300 million, given that there are four former or current presidents still alive and roughly twenty more elections until the youngest alive today would presumably be dead, at best, twenty-four Americans out of 300 million will become President. It is such a small fraction that it isn’t worth noting what the odds of becoming President are for anyone alive today. The point is that it really isn’t that big of a deal and certainly is an enormous overstatement to say that the Constitution creates two tiers of citizenship based on odds worse than playing the lottery.
Then, Sabato raises the bogeyman of the Electoral College to argue for giving larger states even more electors “so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president.” Factually, out of the fifty-five elections we have had since 1789, only on three occasions (1876, 1888, and 2000) has the winner of the Electoral College not also been the winner of the popular vote, which means it has happened in less than 6% of our presidential elections and only once in the last 120 years. That certainly doesn’t qualify as a crisis.
Sabato’s fictional crisis also fails to understand the purpose served by the Electoral College. When the Founding Fathers constructed our system of government, they carefully inserted many checks and balances against factions. Because America is a republic, not a direct democracy, the Founding Fathers sought to ensure that the elected federal government represented the various interests outside of Washington. The House of Representatives, being popularly elected by the people, served to protect the interests of the people within their congressional districts, and districts were allotted to states by population totals. The Founding Fathers felt that the small house districts would serve as a check on the ability of local factions to gain control of the levers of the federal government to enact bad laws or oppress opponents.
In contrast to the House of Representatives, the Senate was made-up of two senators from every state who were elected by the state legislatures. The senators’ primary role was to represent the interests of their states (which might, at times, be in conflict with the majority of people of the states). The fundamental reason why senators were elected by state legislatures was because that process guaranteed that the senators would fight in Washington for the interests of the states (more on that later). The equality of representation among the states served as a check so that larger states could not exert undue influence over the smaller states (which could be done in the house due to the allocation of seats by population).
The President was elected in a manner that gave both the people and the states a role in his election and he served to represent America writ large (both the people in America and the states that make-up America). Specifically, the people vote for electors in each state who are then certified by the state to support the candidate who received the most votes in the Electoral College process. This dual representation means that there will be times, rare as they have been, where the majority interest of the states overrides the majority interest of the people in order to further weaken the ability of a faction to control the Presidency. The last thing we need to do is further disenfranchise the states by totaling removing them from having any say in any of the elected federal branches.
Finally, Sabato raises what I think is the most significant issue in America today given the impact it has on our system of government; namely, that the Senate is not a very representative body. Sabato is right, but for the wrong reason. The Senate does not represent the interest it was designed to represent – the interest of the states. With the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 during the Progressive Era, senators were elected popularly by the people, which disconnected them from being accountable to state legislatures. Not surprisingly, both the era of unfunded mandates and the massive expansion of the federal government during the New Deal and the Great Society Eras began soon thereafter – especially given that the passage of the federal income tax under the 16th Amendment in the same year provided for the means to fund the activities of the expanding federal government.
When states lost their check to rein in recalcitrant senators who voted for legislation that would grow federal power at the expense of state power or for legislation that would pose an unfunded mandate on the states, senators could support legislation that proved popular despite the short or long-term consequences of the legislation on the states. A recent example is the passage of the Real ID Act that requires states to add federal requirements to their driver’s license without receiving federal funds to adopt those requirements. Estimates put the price tag of the Real ID Act for states at over $11 billion.
In order to return to the constitutional structure wisely put in place by the Founding Fathers so that states have a voice and a check on Washington’s zeal for power, instead of scrapping the whole Constitution, we should repeal the 17th Amendment. The advantages of such a change are numerous. First, and most critically, it will revive our federalist system. Given the fact that over the last thirty-five years, several efforts were made to shrink the size of the federal government and all of those efforts failed, the principle of federalism appears mortally wounded. When senators are once again elected by state legislatures, the states will have a powerful check on the ability of Washington to expand its power and levy unfunded mandates on the states.
Next, such a move will place a far greater emphasis on which party controls the state legislature, thereby elevating the importance of state and local political races. This change will create a strong incentive for greater accountability to the voters. Such a change also will create more of an incentive for state and local governments to integrate statewide on activities and initiatives so that their senators can represent more effectively their interests in Washington. In a post-9/11 environment, such regional collaboration attains a higher level of urgency.
Most critically, with the states able to move power out of Washington, the creative vibrancy in Justice Louis Brandeis’ “laboratories of democracy” will compete to solve the “intractable challenges” in America today. After all, it wasn’t Washington that first reformed welfare; it was Wisconsin. It wasn’t Washington that first reformed education; it was Florida. It wasn’t Washington that first reformed health care; it was Massachusetts. Americans rightfully identify that Washington’s power over their lives is too pervasive. A Democracy Corps poll reports that 57% of Americans believe that government makes it harder for them to get ahead and 83% believe that if government has more money it will waste it. If we just get the power out of Washington, which is not possible without giving the states back their check on Washington, then the states will solve our tough issues.
Contrary to Sabato’s view, we don’t need a new constitution. History itself has demonstrated that a constitution can survive well beyond Jefferson’s nineteen-year limit. Just as the Progressives argued for a living constitution that they could interpret “according to the Darwinian principle," those who seek to throw-out the Constitution today believe that the Constitution prevents their kind of “progress” from happening. Good. That is just what the Founding Fathers intended, and Larry Sabato knows it.
Matt A. Mayer, President & CEO of Provisum Strategies LLC and International Studies Adjunct Professor at The Ohio State University, is a Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow.
PING!
I can't believe this guy actually proclaims that he is a moderate and I believed him at one time.
Larry Sabato thinks highly of himself :^
The Constitution is broken, but the last people I would trust to fix it are the idiots currently in charge, who are the very ones who broke it in the first place.
What they should do is ban the federal government from doing anything other than providing for the national defense & war-making power, border control, and the common currency. Let the states do the rest. Leave in the Bill of Rights, but leave it up to the States to enforce it.
What I would like to see is move the Electoral College to the state level. Each county is worth one electoral vote. Whoever wins the county, wins that vote. The votes of all the counties are summed and whichever candidate wins the most counties, wins that States eletoral votes for the Presidential election. That way, one or two cities within the state, along with a couple counties, will not be able to control the future of that state.
With the exceptions of the 16th and 17th Amendments, I disagree with you. Government is broken, not the Constitution. If followed, we could rectify all of our ills.
Of all the proposals I have read on revising the Electoral College... yours deserves the greatest consideration. Good job.
No it isn't but we the people who allow our elected leaders to pay little or no attention to it definitely are a problem!
Sabato somehow got a “name” and became an “expert”, similarly to Juan Williams - neither has much if any substance and I don’t pay much attention to them.
Good idea !
In almost all cases, the College vote moved closer to the popular vote result. The only result that would have been changed was, surprisingly, that Richard Nixon would have defeated John Kennedy.
That article has previously been posted on FreeRepublic.
Congressman Billybob
The Constitution isn’t broken; the people who manage its powers ARE.
Sabato shows the typical empty-headed conceit that infects the liberal circles.
Your points about the two Amendments is correct. Cheers to you (with my cup of Lipton) this morning!
There is a danger in shifting the power too far the other direction. We have a good example in North Carolina, where the small eastern counties and cities vote against what they call "the Great State of Mecklenburg" (Charlotte). We can't get our fair share of road money or adequate funds to run the courts because the legislature is stacked against us (an alliance of rural and liberal Democrats). The eastern part of the state has the best roads with the least traffic because that's where the power sends the money.
I’ll agree that the Constitution is broken, when we see the results of the country actually following its plain language.
Since that has yet to happen in my lifetime, I don’t see the point in changing something we’re not adhering to anyway.
Any attempt to rewrite the Constitution would result in a 20,000+ page maze of contradictions ressembling our current tax code.
Sabato can now be declared a certifiable idiot.
“larry sabato doesn’t understand the constitution.”
he also doesn’t understand “progressive” tyranny, but on the other hand he may be part of it.
Leave in the Bill of Rights, but leave it up to the States to enforce it.
I think that issue was settled with the civil war.
Sabato would probably want the right to abortion on demand written into the Constitution, and for it to mandate that 10% of Congress must be homosexuals.
States already have this power. They can apportion electoral votes any way they wish. Forty-eight states have winner-take-all.
It has been posted here numerous time that Kennedy only won that election because Daley cheated for him in Chicago. I don't know whether that is actually true or not, but it is interesting that your analysis shows that there might be an anomaly there.
Don’t consider yourself the only one who use to believe him. Until the last election, he did appear to be above the fray. But he came out strong against George Allen and made claims against him that he could not back and had to retrack from. He showed his true colors and now, cannot be trusted.
Or, a large mob...
Getting back to Maryland, in PG county, I saw hardly any political signs for Cardin or O'Malley, yet they won that county hands down. A dem running for Governor or Senator is this state has no need to campaign in any other county in this state because they know they have the election wrapped up. Change the system so that whoever wins the county wins that electoral vote, then Maryland would still have Ehrlich as Governor and Steele would be the junior Senator from Maryland.
‘I can’t believe this guy actually proclaims that he is a moderate and I believed him at one time.’
I came to the same conclusion about Sabato almost two years ago.
Here’s one iteration of what a new “Constitution” might look like...
I wonder who went through the effort to write all this.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
I will run on a strong message of "repeal not passage". I will be very unpopular in the media and with established politicians. I will be called a kook. And, I will use the sword-like knife as an campaign advertising gimmick where I slash and destroy props that represent ear-marks (pork), bureaucracy, and barriers to liberty.
While I'll have a lot of fun doing this and calling attentions to the issues that I feel plague us as a nation, I will do relatively poorly in the polls. I will only be a side-show, novelty act and liked only by other like-minded kooks in the voting district. I'll be forced out of the race and I will likely throw my support behind another candidate. Many more voters than not will be happy that my campaign skidded to a halt. The moral of my story that hasn't even taken place yet: many voters don't care about liberty and are the types that, assuming that they can read and reading interests them, will own Sabato's book and accept what he writes as profound and well reasoned.
SIR, I wish I could rate your post. It was beautiful.
So go change your state contitution.
(No offense to Davneport or Weather Girls in mini-skirts.)
The Constitution already restricts the Federal government to ONLY providing for the national defense & war-making power, border control, and the common currency.
The commerce and general welfare clauses have been, IMO, unconstitutionally broadened in order to effectively repeal the 9th and 10th amendments and the obvious restrictions on powers elsewhere in the Constitution. I say "obvious" because why specify particular powers if the commerce and general welfare clauses meant any and all powers?
And as to that welfare clause -- the constitution says "promote" the general welfare, whereas it says "provide" for the common defence. Note the two different terms. It does not say "provide" for the general welfare. The framers could obviously have said that because they said exactly that for defense.
We just need a honest to liberty conservative Supreme Court to put the Federal government back into its bottle. Now if one more justice would retire before 2009 and the Senate would put Justice Janice Rogers Brown in his or her seat...
The proposed EU Constitution is as thick as a phone book. There is no reason to think that a new US Constitution would be any less unweildy.
.
This is far from the first time ole Lar has been wrong.
I think that rather than revisiting the Constitution, we should revisit the idea of having only one federation of States.
I’d like to see the original Confederacy, plus a number of right-leaning western states, united in a country that had some shared values and shared vision.
I think Sabato got that quote from Calypso Louie.
Liberals just LOVE to distort and lie about Jefferson, like they do with the so-called “Jefferson Bible”.
Nah. There is a lot more in there than that. They can regulate interstate commerce, for example. Take out all of that stuff. Maybe they should ban states from charging import or export fees, but that’s as far as I’d go. If you eliminate the unnecessary verbage, you won’t have to worry about them expanding the language above its original intent.
Badabing!
Kudoes to Matt Mayer for a truly great piece of writing!
It is possible that a handful will see or hear about a small selection of soundbites from Sabato's book. Other than that...? Have you ever seen Leno's "Jaywalking" segments? Most people couldn't tell you the name of the Vice President of the United States. Many cannot name the President. Forget about any cabinet heads or Supreme Court justices....
"A republic, if you can keep it...."
After the last election where Sabato was outrightly campaigning for democrats and smearing George Allen, his true colors were very apparent.
Yep, I remember that as well.
This would be an advantage if Reynolds v. Sims is ever overturned. The Senate could be apportioned county-by-county, and a lot of the liberal nonsense wouldn't get through the State House.
Oh no he wants to repel the 2nd amendment. Get it. The BOR is also up for revision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.