1. [The equal representation of the states in the Senate]...
2. [The Electoral College]...
3. Is it appropriate that a president can frustrate the will of a majority of both houses of Congress by vetoing legislation with which he disagrees on purely political grounds?...
4. Is it a desirable feature of the Constitution that the impeachment clause enables us to rid ourselves of a criminal president, but leaves us at the tender mercies of an incompetent one until the conclusion of his or her fixed term of office?...
5. Does it make sense that an incumbent defeated in a national election maintains the presidency for a full ten weeks beyond election day, fully capable of making policy decisions that may drastically effect [sic] the future of the United States?...
6. Do you really want justices on the Supreme Court to serve up to four decades and, among other things, to be able to time their resignations to mesh with their own political preferences?...
7. Do you support the ability of thirteen legislative houses in as many states to block constitutional amendments desired by the overwhelming majority of Americans and, potentially, by eighty-six out of the ninety-nine legislative houses in the American states?
These are interesting (and, in some cases, long argued) points about our Constitution and system of government. It's not perfect, but it's served us pretty well for 219 years.
1. [The equal representation of the states in the Senate]...
ReplyDeleteI surely do support this. This feature gives each state equal power, whereas in the Articles of Federation the larger states were given more power.
2. [The Electoral College]...
I think the value of the electoral college has passed.
3. Is it appropriate that a president can frustrate the will of a majority of both houses of Congress by vetoing legislation with which he disagrees on purely political grounds?...
As long as a 2/3 majority of the senate maintains it's will to have the bill pass. I suppose the author here assumes a veto is only appropriate when the majority of both houses submits a stupid bill.
4. Is it a desirable feature of the Constitution that the impeachment clause enables us to rid ourselves of a criminal president, but leaves us at the tender mercies of an incompetent one until the conclusion of his or her fixed term of office?...
Yes. Crime is quantitative. Competence is qualititive. The Constitution provides the President must be 35 years old (or older). The author intimates there should be a test to ensure the president-wannabe's act their age, I guess.
5. Does it make sense that an incumbent defeated in a national election maintains the presidency for a full ten weeks beyond election day, fully capable of making policy decisions that may drastically effect [sic] the future of the United States?...
Hey, why don't we behead the losing incumbent within 24 ours, thereby ensuring a quick change of administration? Oh wait...what about re-counts?
6. Do you really want justices on the Supreme Court to serve up to four decades and, among other things, to be able to time their resignations to mesh with their own political preferences?...
Yes. Just to keep people like you from meshing their political preferences with SC Justice retirement schedules.
7. Do you support the ability of thirteen legislative houses in as many states to block constitutional amendments desired by the overwhelming majority of Americans and, potentially, by eighty-six out of the ninety-nine legislative houses in the American states?
Yes. Has the author ever read the Federalist. Good lord, it's all explained in there.
I think the author is desirous of a form of government in which the minority can, for any reason they decide, cause the entire government to collapse by quitting. It's worked well around globe, hasn't it? Imagine, if you will, the Democratic party getting rid of a duly elected president they don't like merely by running away? And vice versa? We would never have a stable government.
Levinson advocates a Constitutional convention to reform our guiding document. Frankly, I have no problem with any of the seven flaws he lists. Most of them can be summed up as balance of power issues designed to prevent any side (whether it be a branch of government or just a large number of people) from gaining too much power. The reason for the cumbersomeness(is that a word?) of the process to overturn a veto or add an amendment to the Constitution is designed to prevent rash decisions that we as a country could regret later.
ReplyDeleteOne thing about the amendment process that I rarely see brought up is that it was introduced at a time that there were only 13 states. It might be difficult to get 2/3 of those to agree to an alteration of the Constitution, but it is infinitely harder to get 2/3 of 50 to agree. That's possibly why groups are much more gung-ho on judicial fiat.