Many Americans give the Constitution a sort of magical quality and consider it nearly perfect.
It isn't but the best quality about it is one we use the least, the ability to update it.
This document was reflective of its times and permitted slavery, denied women the right to vote and is heavily geared to protect property owners and doesn't support one person one vote very well.
In fact in order to pass it we had to tack on the first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) almost immediately.
The Constitution itself does a good job of creating three equal but separate branches of Government with three different intertwined roles.
There are still issues in this country that should be updated, if we want a democratic country. For example the electoral college and the distribution of Senators by State are not democratic in implementation and lead to states with lower populations having more influence than populous states.
States or ex-colonies had a lot to do with this as the federal government was primarily designed to deal with things like foreign policy while the States concerned themselves with the everyday stuff.
It is still an important document that has helped this country thrive but it did also allow this country to fight a bloody civil war.
Amendments have corrected some of its early flaws, but we haven't fixed some others.
We need to.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Friday, August 16, 2019
Constitutional Amendments?
To some extent Americans treat the constitution as a sort of sacred document that was handed down to us by the founders.
It did provide a fairly good template for the nation, but lets not forget, it has been amended over 20 times. In fact the first 10 were done to secure its acceptance.
Two of these amendment actually cancel each other out, prohibition and its repeal.
There are certainly things in the constitution that need amendment.
One is the electoral college. It clearly distorts the idea of one person one vote and allows for results that run contrary to democratic ideals. It therefore is supported by those who feel it benefits them disproportionately. Its not a democratic institution and there is no real need for it.
It might be a good idea to review the second amendment and clarify what is meant by a well regulated militia. Certainly the ability of jurisdictions to regulate guns in its own borders should be added. It was after all designed to protect the new states from a federal overreach.
We should go ahead and ratify the equal rights amendment or something similar. Guaranteeing that all people share the same rights and privileges just seems like the right thing to do.
We should add provisions similar to some states where the people can get measures on the ballot and approve or disapprove them. In cases where politics is preventing things the people want we should have a provision to let the people decide.
In fact the most important thing would be to improve the participation of the people in our Government. The Senate suffers from a non democratic representation. Maybe we should allow one senator for every million people but no less than two?
Its very unlikely that any of these changes will take place unless there is such a public outcry they can't be denied. Still we should certainly consider some reasonable improvements.
It did provide a fairly good template for the nation, but lets not forget, it has been amended over 20 times. In fact the first 10 were done to secure its acceptance.
Two of these amendment actually cancel each other out, prohibition and its repeal.
There are certainly things in the constitution that need amendment.
One is the electoral college. It clearly distorts the idea of one person one vote and allows for results that run contrary to democratic ideals. It therefore is supported by those who feel it benefits them disproportionately. Its not a democratic institution and there is no real need for it.
It might be a good idea to review the second amendment and clarify what is meant by a well regulated militia. Certainly the ability of jurisdictions to regulate guns in its own borders should be added. It was after all designed to protect the new states from a federal overreach.
We should go ahead and ratify the equal rights amendment or something similar. Guaranteeing that all people share the same rights and privileges just seems like the right thing to do.
We should add provisions similar to some states where the people can get measures on the ballot and approve or disapprove them. In cases where politics is preventing things the people want we should have a provision to let the people decide.
In fact the most important thing would be to improve the participation of the people in our Government. The Senate suffers from a non democratic representation. Maybe we should allow one senator for every million people but no less than two?
Its very unlikely that any of these changes will take place unless there is such a public outcry they can't be denied. Still we should certainly consider some reasonable improvements.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Checks and Balances
We are currently in the midst of a constitutional crisis concerning the roles of the legislature and the executive branches.
Most Americans don't seem to care very much.
Our Government is a series of checks and balances.
The Executive branch was recognized as the one with the greatest opportunity for abuse of power so congress was given two significant checks on that power.
First it has the power of the purse meaning that its the only branch that can authorize funds.
Second it has the power of oversight,
While there have been some abuses of the first check we are seeing an outright refusal of the current administration to allow the oversight to proceed.
This is a challenge to the very nature of our Government and shouldn't be tolerated.
Most Americans don't seem to care very much.
Our Government is a series of checks and balances.
The Executive branch was recognized as the one with the greatest opportunity for abuse of power so congress was given two significant checks on that power.
First it has the power of the purse meaning that its the only branch that can authorize funds.
Second it has the power of oversight,
While there have been some abuses of the first check we are seeing an outright refusal of the current administration to allow the oversight to proceed.
This is a challenge to the very nature of our Government and shouldn't be tolerated.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
Church and State
The idea that Church and State can be separated is a relatively unique one. In fact it isn't all that prevalent in most of the world.
Om pretty much every ancient civilization they were one and the same.
In fact in most of those cultures, state functions were often religious functions, there just wasn't any difference.
If you think about it, the people who told you how to live and what to do had to work in unison or it would be chaotic. In the middle ages the Protestant reformation was accompanied by savage wars as individual Kings and Princes decided what religion would be practiced in their state. It was the exception rather than the rule when subject peoples were allowed to continue worshiping their own God or gods.
The persecution of non-conforming sects was one of the factors that led to people emigrating to America and because they were distinct colonies, each following a slightly different version of Christianity that we said no State religion would be created, it was needed to get acceptance.
It was unlikely that the founders were accepting of non-Christian religions, but the Constitution is and today we see our country as one of the few where so many religions are allowed to thrive.
We see a bit of a reaction currently as certain state practices violate or seem to violate certain religious beliefs.
There is some desire by those practicing evangelical religions to make the country righteous and tolerating what they consider sin is also a sin.
They exert some significant influence, especially in certain states as they can certainly influence who wins primaries, and sometimes general elections.
The freedom of religion, or in fact the freedom to not practice religion is something most of us cherish about this country.
Like all our rights, it is not guaranteed, we need to defend it and protect it.
Freedom is never free, each generation has to earn it.
Om pretty much every ancient civilization they were one and the same.
In fact in most of those cultures, state functions were often religious functions, there just wasn't any difference.
If you think about it, the people who told you how to live and what to do had to work in unison or it would be chaotic. In the middle ages the Protestant reformation was accompanied by savage wars as individual Kings and Princes decided what religion would be practiced in their state. It was the exception rather than the rule when subject peoples were allowed to continue worshiping their own God or gods.
The persecution of non-conforming sects was one of the factors that led to people emigrating to America and because they were distinct colonies, each following a slightly different version of Christianity that we said no State religion would be created, it was needed to get acceptance.
It was unlikely that the founders were accepting of non-Christian religions, but the Constitution is and today we see our country as one of the few where so many religions are allowed to thrive.
We see a bit of a reaction currently as certain state practices violate or seem to violate certain religious beliefs.
There is some desire by those practicing evangelical religions to make the country righteous and tolerating what they consider sin is also a sin.
They exert some significant influence, especially in certain states as they can certainly influence who wins primaries, and sometimes general elections.
The freedom of religion, or in fact the freedom to not practice religion is something most of us cherish about this country.
Like all our rights, it is not guaranteed, we need to defend it and protect it.
Freedom is never free, each generation has to earn it.
Friday, April 26, 2019
Constitutional Powers
We go through periods when either because of a crisis or war or simply because of an ineffectual congress that the presidential powers start to expand.
Of course once they expand it is hard to reel them in.
Eventually of course we get someone who overdoes it and congress tries to reestablish their constitutional role.
Our nation is designed to have a legislature the creates law, and a president who executes it. While of course the president can propose laws and policies, and can block legislation with his veto, he is supposed to run the government efficiently, similar is some ways to a CEO.
CEOs though generally have a lot more policy authority.
It is hard for presidents to resist expanding their authority, it often seems like the only way to get things done. However the legislative process is messy because it generally results in policies that are acceptable to most people.
Doing nothing is often preferable to doing something wrong.
Take the issues with our Southern Border.
There is significant disagreement about the solution that's needed and even about the extent of the problem.
Usurping legislative power by declaring an emergency which it clearly isn't is abusing the constitution.
We may have a significant problem on the border, we may not, but emergency implies some sort of imminent danger, which there isn't.
This will eventually be decided in the courts and lets hope the new nominees stick to the constitution. If they don't we may be on a dangerous road indeed.
Of course once they expand it is hard to reel them in.
Eventually of course we get someone who overdoes it and congress tries to reestablish their constitutional role.
Our nation is designed to have a legislature the creates law, and a president who executes it. While of course the president can propose laws and policies, and can block legislation with his veto, he is supposed to run the government efficiently, similar is some ways to a CEO.
CEOs though generally have a lot more policy authority.
It is hard for presidents to resist expanding their authority, it often seems like the only way to get things done. However the legislative process is messy because it generally results in policies that are acceptable to most people.
Doing nothing is often preferable to doing something wrong.
Take the issues with our Southern Border.
There is significant disagreement about the solution that's needed and even about the extent of the problem.
Usurping legislative power by declaring an emergency which it clearly isn't is abusing the constitution.
We may have a significant problem on the border, we may not, but emergency implies some sort of imminent danger, which there isn't.
This will eventually be decided in the courts and lets hope the new nominees stick to the constitution. If they don't we may be on a dangerous road indeed.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Health Insurance
We see the attacks on the Affordable Care Act continue as the administration has decided to support the ruling that it is unconstitutional.
Almost no one thinks that is a good legal argument, it is based on some convoluted logic concerning the last decision, that the individual mandate was constitutional under the congress' ability t tax.
Since subsequently they reduced the penalty (tax) to zero, it is no longer a real tax, meaning the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The argument goes on to say that the mandate is intertwined so deeply that if it is unconstitutional, the whole thing is.
Now this flies in the face of the act passed by congress that reduced the tax.
However, as odd as the argument actually is, the question arises why would the administration attack the rest of the law?
It has become very popular with most people, at least the provisions related to the pre-existing conditions, the dependent age increase, and the increase in coverage to so many.
It is almost as if the administration, who got hurt in the last mid-terms over health care, want to give their incumbents a handicap.
Still it is something to watch and in the very unlikely scenario where the entire law is invalidated, we will have to see what is offered up instead.
Maybe millions of uninsured, the Republican goal.
Almost no one thinks that is a good legal argument, it is based on some convoluted logic concerning the last decision, that the individual mandate was constitutional under the congress' ability t tax.
Since subsequently they reduced the penalty (tax) to zero, it is no longer a real tax, meaning the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The argument goes on to say that the mandate is intertwined so deeply that if it is unconstitutional, the whole thing is.
Now this flies in the face of the act passed by congress that reduced the tax.
However, as odd as the argument actually is, the question arises why would the administration attack the rest of the law?
It has become very popular with most people, at least the provisions related to the pre-existing conditions, the dependent age increase, and the increase in coverage to so many.
It is almost as if the administration, who got hurt in the last mid-terms over health care, want to give their incumbents a handicap.
Still it is something to watch and in the very unlikely scenario where the entire law is invalidated, we will have to see what is offered up instead.
Maybe millions of uninsured, the Republican goal.
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
The Power of the Purse
I find it very hard to understand anyone who thinks we have a crisis or emergency at our southern border.
Yes some migrants try to cross illegally, generally to then claim asylum after they surrender.
No documented terrorists have been found to cross that way, although of course the possibility can't be ignored. Still we don't have instances of terrorist acts committed by people crossing that border illegally.
There have been some crimes, and sometimes violent crimes committed by undocumented aliens, but these are actually pretty rare and the fact that they people were undocumented aliens is not much of a factor.
We have plenty of news coverage of what is going on at the border and the main issues concern the safety of people trying to seek asylum and a better life in this country.
The problem is that we have a chief executive who was searching for some excuse to grab some money to build a useless wall and is misusing an act meant to facilitate action in real emergencies.
This needs to be fixed, because that is Pandora's box once it is opened.
The constitution requires appropriations to be made by the congress, because the power of the purse strings is the best way to control a wayward executive.
If that line is crossed we may find ourselves going further and further into tyranny.
It has happened, unfortunately, many time throughout history and we need to nip it in the bud.
There are simple solutions that would allow quick response in real emergencies and still preserve the constitution. Simply requiring any such declaration to be ratified by congress within a reasonable time would do the trick.
It obviously isn't something they can pass right now, but it needs to happen.
Yes some migrants try to cross illegally, generally to then claim asylum after they surrender.
No documented terrorists have been found to cross that way, although of course the possibility can't be ignored. Still we don't have instances of terrorist acts committed by people crossing that border illegally.
There have been some crimes, and sometimes violent crimes committed by undocumented aliens, but these are actually pretty rare and the fact that they people were undocumented aliens is not much of a factor.
We have plenty of news coverage of what is going on at the border and the main issues concern the safety of people trying to seek asylum and a better life in this country.
The problem is that we have a chief executive who was searching for some excuse to grab some money to build a useless wall and is misusing an act meant to facilitate action in real emergencies.
This needs to be fixed, because that is Pandora's box once it is opened.
The constitution requires appropriations to be made by the congress, because the power of the purse strings is the best way to control a wayward executive.
If that line is crossed we may find ourselves going further and further into tyranny.
It has happened, unfortunately, many time throughout history and we need to nip it in the bud.
There are simple solutions that would allow quick response in real emergencies and still preserve the constitution. Simply requiring any such declaration to be ratified by congress within a reasonable time would do the trick.
It obviously isn't something they can pass right now, but it needs to happen.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Not the Worst Case
All things considered the Supreme Court nominee that the dontard went with, fits the generally acceptable criteria.
Clearly he could have picked someone with absolutely not qualifications, like many of his cabinet picks.
It was going to be a conservative, that was a given, but this one is at least qualified.
The Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the constitution.
Its not designed or suited to set policy, that is the job of the congress.
The constitution has congress passing the laws, the President executing those laws and the Supreme Court ensuring the laws comply with the constitution.
Of course they all have additional duties, and everyone of them has become more partisan than the founders envisioned, but fundamentally we have those three branches for those three reason.
It may be naïve to think that a Supreme Court justice can actually rely on the law and not partisan politics to form his/her opinions, but if it is I remain naïve.
Time will tell if the changes of this new court are simply conservative, meaning the constitution gets interpreted narrowly restricting further government encroachment or radical where it attempts to undo previous precedent.
Time will tell.
Clearly he could have picked someone with absolutely not qualifications, like many of his cabinet picks.
It was going to be a conservative, that was a given, but this one is at least qualified.
The Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the constitution.
Its not designed or suited to set policy, that is the job of the congress.
The constitution has congress passing the laws, the President executing those laws and the Supreme Court ensuring the laws comply with the constitution.
Of course they all have additional duties, and everyone of them has become more partisan than the founders envisioned, but fundamentally we have those three branches for those three reason.
It may be naïve to think that a Supreme Court justice can actually rely on the law and not partisan politics to form his/her opinions, but if it is I remain naïve.
Time will tell if the changes of this new court are simply conservative, meaning the constitution gets interpreted narrowly restricting further government encroachment or radical where it attempts to undo previous precedent.
Time will tell.
Friday, March 30, 2018
Young Guns
Well, we can now say that Hope has left the White House.
Of course that refers to Hope Hicks who seems to have played a pretty important role there despite her young age.
Being young is hardly an impediment to doing something good.
I saw a list of how young many of our founding fathers were when they wrote the constitution and being young wasn't an impediment.
It may account for some of the idealism we see in it.
Some people have attacked the students speaking out against gun violence as being young. Pretty sure not getting shot is important at any age.
I'm not aware that anyone is attacking responsible gun ownership, although the NRA likes to say it is under attack.
Most supporters of gun rights ignore the fact that the second amendment starts by saying a "well regulated Militia". The right to bear arms seems pretty clearly related to this, being in the same amendment and all and I wonder if all gun owners are ready to be called into action as a "well regulated" militia?
Of course the end of the amendment says the right shall not be infringed and that has led to our current situation.
If we adopt the "not be infringed" it is hard to accept any restrictions as appropriate. It is hard to believe that the founding fathers expected it to be so broadly interpreted, they didn't want to arm slaves or most women.
Should a dangerous mentally ill person be allowed to have a gun?
If "not be infringed" is interpreted in a common sense way, meaning it means unreasonable infringement, than we should be able to agree on what is reasonable.
Since we have a number of Supreme Court cases already that accepted reasonable gun restrictions, we seem to be past that hurdle.
Lets try to use some common sense.
Of course that refers to Hope Hicks who seems to have played a pretty important role there despite her young age.
Being young is hardly an impediment to doing something good.
I saw a list of how young many of our founding fathers were when they wrote the constitution and being young wasn't an impediment.
It may account for some of the idealism we see in it.
Some people have attacked the students speaking out against gun violence as being young. Pretty sure not getting shot is important at any age.
I'm not aware that anyone is attacking responsible gun ownership, although the NRA likes to say it is under attack.
Most supporters of gun rights ignore the fact that the second amendment starts by saying a "well regulated Militia". The right to bear arms seems pretty clearly related to this, being in the same amendment and all and I wonder if all gun owners are ready to be called into action as a "well regulated" militia?
Of course the end of the amendment says the right shall not be infringed and that has led to our current situation.
If we adopt the "not be infringed" it is hard to accept any restrictions as appropriate. It is hard to believe that the founding fathers expected it to be so broadly interpreted, they didn't want to arm slaves or most women.
Should a dangerous mentally ill person be allowed to have a gun?
If "not be infringed" is interpreted in a common sense way, meaning it means unreasonable infringement, than we should be able to agree on what is reasonable.
Since we have a number of Supreme Court cases already that accepted reasonable gun restrictions, we seem to be past that hurdle.
Lets try to use some common sense.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Free Speech
I saw an article about a high school newspaper in California that ran cartoons depicting the dontard as a Nazi and the police as KKK members. Now this apparently sparked some sort of outrage which sounds like something that it outrageous itself.
Who cares what gets printed is these high school magazines outside of the high school and local community? Apparently in today's world everyone does.
Now this was reported by the propaganda group over at Murdoch's channel and I wonder how many times they got outraged by cartoons of the prior president? I suspect not very often, which is what they should do since all of this is protected by the first amendment of the constitution.
If the expectation now is that you can only send you child to a high school that allows no controversy or free expression, well, I have to say I'm sorry for that child.
Now I grew up at a time when protesting the Vietnam war was an ongoing activity and there were lively debates and cartoons everywhere.
Not sure anyone turned out the worse for it, it was an exercise in freedom.
We also had the protests related to the civil rights movement which also had very lively discussions and unfortunately some pretty lively violence also.
Whatever your opinion is of the current president you have the right to express it. If you see an opinion you don't like, you can respond or ignore it.
Free speech is a dangerous thing but it also one of the most positive things we have.
If you spend a lot of time defending the 2nd Amendment, maybe you should think about how the first gives you the right to do that and appreciate it instead of trying to suppress it.
Who cares what gets printed is these high school magazines outside of the high school and local community? Apparently in today's world everyone does.
Now this was reported by the propaganda group over at Murdoch's channel and I wonder how many times they got outraged by cartoons of the prior president? I suspect not very often, which is what they should do since all of this is protected by the first amendment of the constitution.
If the expectation now is that you can only send you child to a high school that allows no controversy or free expression, well, I have to say I'm sorry for that child.
Now I grew up at a time when protesting the Vietnam war was an ongoing activity and there were lively debates and cartoons everywhere.
Not sure anyone turned out the worse for it, it was an exercise in freedom.
We also had the protests related to the civil rights movement which also had very lively discussions and unfortunately some pretty lively violence also.
Whatever your opinion is of the current president you have the right to express it. If you see an opinion you don't like, you can respond or ignore it.
Free speech is a dangerous thing but it also one of the most positive things we have.
If you spend a lot of time defending the 2nd Amendment, maybe you should think about how the first gives you the right to do that and appreciate it instead of trying to suppress it.
Monday, June 5, 2017
Constitution, it slows him down
Our megalomaniac president who seems to be afraid of his own shadow said in no uncertain terms that he wants to ban Muslims is whole or in part because they might be terrorists.
Now I'm in favor of banning terrorists and I actually support incarcerating them, but as an American who believes in the constitution there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Where you are born or who your parents are is not grounds for discrimination.
Some argue that the constitution doesn't apply, but it applies to all our laws and actions as a nation and not just to citizens. Two people apply for admittance, their religion can't be the reason we accept one and reject the other.
Its our laws and policies that the constitution governs, even if it is inconvenient for someone's political agenda.
When you say the courts are slow and political, they may be, but they are required to follow the constitution.
As of course the president is, someone should tell him.
Our system of Government has its flaws, it led to a president who lost the popular vote by a lot due to the way we set up the electoral college. However, we abide by the outcome because the constitution is the law of the land, even if its inconvenient.
I'm in favor of amending it to fix its flaws, nothing is ever perfect but that would be through a constitutional process.
Otherwise we have to follow it.
It's the law!
Now I'm in favor of banning terrorists and I actually support incarcerating them, but as an American who believes in the constitution there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Where you are born or who your parents are is not grounds for discrimination.
Some argue that the constitution doesn't apply, but it applies to all our laws and actions as a nation and not just to citizens. Two people apply for admittance, their religion can't be the reason we accept one and reject the other.
Its our laws and policies that the constitution governs, even if it is inconvenient for someone's political agenda.
When you say the courts are slow and political, they may be, but they are required to follow the constitution.
As of course the president is, someone should tell him.
Our system of Government has its flaws, it led to a president who lost the popular vote by a lot due to the way we set up the electoral college. However, we abide by the outcome because the constitution is the law of the land, even if its inconvenient.
I'm in favor of amending it to fix its flaws, nothing is ever perfect but that would be through a constitutional process.
Otherwise we have to follow it.
It's the law!
Thursday, August 11, 2016
America's Values
In the Bill of Rights we spell out the rights each person is entitled to in our great nation. Note the use of the word person, not citizen, so those who think it only applies to citizens are already trying to change its very nature.
The rights of the people includes all the people. Of course in the first 70 years we excluded slaves and so it wasn't as inclusive as it should have been, but the language is inclusive.
These are the first 10 amendments to the constitution and we have added additional ones since then to expand and clarify the constitution.
Fundamentally the rights are fairly simple, Most of us take them for granted although far too many ignore them in practice.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed, not just religions the majority approve of.
I see so many attacks on Islam and Muslims simply because of the religion they follow and the assumption that because political terrorists in many cases grew up in that religion, the religion promotes terrorism.
For a bunch of complex reasons, many people in nations in the middle east where Islam is the predominant religion feel that America is the enemy. This is partly because of our support of Israel, our military presence, our support for certain regimes or lack thereof and partly because we represent Western Culture which they view as evil. They become terrorists because of these political motivations not because of their religion.
Irish terrorists were primarily Catholic, but Catholicism doesn't promote or condone terrorism.
Confusing religion with politics is common but wrong. Sometimes the same religion can argue opposing points of view i.e. white and black protestants during the civil rights era.
This is only the first right mentioned in the first Amendment and I would certainly encourage all those people so fond of the second amendment to brush up on the entire document.
The rights of the people includes all the people. Of course in the first 70 years we excluded slaves and so it wasn't as inclusive as it should have been, but the language is inclusive.
These are the first 10 amendments to the constitution and we have added additional ones since then to expand and clarify the constitution.
Fundamentally the rights are fairly simple, Most of us take them for granted although far too many ignore them in practice.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed, not just religions the majority approve of.
I see so many attacks on Islam and Muslims simply because of the religion they follow and the assumption that because political terrorists in many cases grew up in that religion, the religion promotes terrorism.
For a bunch of complex reasons, many people in nations in the middle east where Islam is the predominant religion feel that America is the enemy. This is partly because of our support of Israel, our military presence, our support for certain regimes or lack thereof and partly because we represent Western Culture which they view as evil. They become terrorists because of these political motivations not because of their religion.
Irish terrorists were primarily Catholic, but Catholicism doesn't promote or condone terrorism.
Confusing religion with politics is common but wrong. Sometimes the same religion can argue opposing points of view i.e. white and black protestants during the civil rights era.
This is only the first right mentioned in the first Amendment and I would certainly encourage all those people so fond of the second amendment to brush up on the entire document.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)