How should we amend the Constitution to prevent the current heap of BS in the future?

[TechBear_Seattle]

Time for a thought experiment.

Over time, we have learned that the Constitution, as originally written, had flaws. The Framers were wise enought to recognize that such could be the case, and included a system for amending the Constitution. Most of the 27 ratified amendments were in response to problems that came up latter in the country's history. So let us respond to the current crop of problems, and figure out how we can prevent them from occuring in the future.

I am working on amendments to:

• Explicitly prohibit "signing statements";


• Require the Executive Branch to enforce and obey existing laws without removing the power to reject bills which are not yet laws and with provision for terminating ratified treaties which, under the Constitution, are equivalent to and have the identical status of US laws;


• Define "executive priviledge" and place tight boundaries on how and when it can be used;


• Define "high crimes and misdemeanors"; and


• Create a system which empowers Congress, as (theoretically) the direct representatives of the people, to excercise oversight of the Executive Branch.

What other amendments do you think should be proposed? Why? And how would you word them?

[Christian30]

1. That's a great start...

I think we need more stringent rules for appointing Supreme Court Justices. Perhaps we need to remove the lifetime appointment stuff since it's obvious that it no longer shields the Court from partisan influence.

[unpossibles]

2. I think expanding the court to 13 justices would possibly help too

Also, can we make a rule that says "No Douchebags for President"?

[Kokonoe]

4. I would like to see 100 justices.

Don't tell bush, but i think the president may assign as many as he wants at any time.

[unpossibles]

7. even better idea

more justices would go a long way toward not stacking the courts.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. The Founders wanted very much to avoid partisanship

Or as James Madison referred to it in Federalist Paper #10, factionalism. But that is beside the point: the idea behind life-time appointments of judges was to remove them from public pressure, not partisan pressure. A judge who had to worry about public opinion or reappointment from the current government will make rulings with that in mind rather than focus totally on the law. And living in a state where judges must be reelected, I have to agree with the wisdom of the Founders.

I would be very against the removal of life-time appointments for the judiciary. However, I think the role of the Senate as a check on Executive appointments -- judges, ambassadors, cabinet members, etc. -- could stand to be clarified and strengthened.

[Throwing Stones]

5. I think the Constitution itself is fine -

If we had a strong Congress and Judiciary that actually carried out their respective duties, I don't think any amendments would be necessary.

Under the current system, if used properly:

- Signing statements cannot change the meaning of law enacted by Congress and should carry zero weight with the courts.

- The Executive is already required to enforce and obey laws. I'm not sure what you mean about terminating treaties - do you mean the Executive should be able to terminate treaties that are ratified by the Senate?

- Does any sentient person think that warrantless wiretaps, torture, rendition, etc. don't meet the high crimes and misdemeanors standard?

- The House oversight committee already has those powers and Conyers is using them, only a bit too slowly for most of us. Additionally, Congress has not just the power of the purse but the power to oversee how every single dollar in the fisc is spent.

The Constitution has worked fine for over 200 years and I tinkering with it rather than following it is dangerous.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. The reason for my proposed amendments

Is that we have a Congress that is openly unwilling to take some steps, and without clear authority to take the steps it is willing to take. And there is the problem that the current system is not being used properly. As for your points:

- Signing statements are being used to change the meaning of laws enacted by Congress, and the Court has shown no interest in deciding whether or not such statements have any weight.

- There is no Constitutional requirement that the Executive enforce and obey the law. It is implicit in our legal system, but Constitutional protections give no one the authority to enforce this. As for treaties, the Executive Branch has routinely broken ratified treaties by its own executive authority, despite the Constitution making it very clear that once ratified, treaties are identical to laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Just as laws remain on the books until it is modified or repealed by Congress, there should be a similar provision regarding treaties. If the President is going to be required to enforce the law as it stands, there should be a method for changing or repealing ratified treaties rather than having the President say, "This doesn't apply anymore."

- By your standard, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court are sentient.

- The power of Congress is too limited, and has almost no Constitutional authority over the Executive branch.

Do you feel the same way about Amendments 13 (the abolition of slavery), 17 (direct election of Senators), 19 (guaranteed a woman's right to vote), 23 (allowed residents of DC to vote for President), 24 (prohibition of poll taxes) and 26 (lowered voting age to 18)? If the Constitution is fine, there is no need to tinker with it, correct?

[Throwing Stones]

12. I just don't see how any of those amendments would change anything

I love your avatar, by the way.

If everyone drives 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and the police don't give out tickets, where's the incentive to not speed? Would lowering the speed limit to 55 mph but still not ticketing the people going 75 have any effect?

The Constitution gives each branch all the power they need to keep the other two branches in check. Congress's oversight of all government spending is nearly absolute:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." Art. I, Sec. 9.

Additionally, "(i)t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is", not signing statements. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[Virginia Dare]

6. The Republican congress shirked it's constitutional duties for too long..

they became a useful tool for the White House. There was no oversight and no accountability. There's nothing wrong with the constitution as I see it, as long as everybody does the job they are supposed to do.

[indepat]

8. If only all who have severely breached their oaths of office could be impeached, convicted, and

removed from office.

[LiberalFighter]

9. As I've stated numerous times... amendment prohibiting any descendant of Prescott Bush

from holding any governmental position.

[librechik]

11. Please everybody read this: Restore the Constitution in one sentence resolution

From our own "Crisis Papers" Ernest Partridge:



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/102
The Administration of George Bush has, in effect, suspended the Constitution of the United States. At Guantánamo in Cuba, in military prisons in the United States, and in secret detention facilities abroad, American citizens and non-citizens are being held without charge, without counsel, without prospect of a jury trial, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights. These rights apply to all persons under United States jurisdiction. The word "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

The same Administration has conducted warrantless surveillance of American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and despite an explicit order of the Supreme Court to cease and desist.

And the Administration, in violation of ratified treaties which have the force of law (Article Six of the Constitution), is engaged in an undeclared war against a non-threatening nation, and is torturing prisoners. The treaties are, respectively, the Nuremberg Accords and the Geneva Conventions.

The President, upon signing Congressional legislation, issues "signing statements" which state, in effect, that he can, at his discretion, ignore the legislation above his signature. And he has issued a "directive" that, in event of some unspecified "emergency" so designated by himself, he can assume dictatorial powers.

Nor is this the end of it. As most readers are well aware, there have been numerous additional illegal acts by the Bush Administration, including the "outing" of a covert intelligence officer, obstruction of justice, and lying to the Congress and the American people.

The institution best situated to put an end to these crimes and to hold the criminals accountable to the rule of law is the Congress of the United States, each member of which has taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Five months into its new term, the Congress now in control of the Democratic party has done essentially nothing to restore the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. The initial decisive act leading to that end might be as simple as the passage of this two sentence resolution:

"The Congress of the United States hereby affirms that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. Accordingly, any and all legislation and executive orders in violation of the Constitution are null and void."

The word "affirms" is crucial, for it states that at no time was the Constitution legally "in suspension," and thus any legislation or acts by the Bush administration in violation thereof were at all times illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the word "restoration" must be avoided in such a resolution.

The Democrats should bring this resolution to a vote, and dare the Republicans to vote against it. The GOP would doubtless resist by calling it a "meaningless political stunt," and would struggle to prevent an open vote. But if it were to be brought to a vote, who would dare go on record with a denial that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

And if such a resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, it should be immediately followed by other resolutions specifying the implications of that first resolution. Namely,

* It is affirmed that all US citizens and other individuals under US jurisdiction enjoy the protection of Habeas Corpus, as specified in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

* Therefore, all persons in custody at Guantánamo and other prisons must either be charged with a crime and given a fair trial, or released. Following that, the Guantánamo facility must be closed and all "renditions" of prisoners to other countries cease.

* All torture of so-called "enemy combatants" must cease immediately.

* All provisions of the Patriot Act and the Military Provisions Act in violation of the protections of the Constitution must be declared null and void.

* Acts of Congress signed by the President have the status of law, and signing statements have no legal status whatever.

In addition, the Congress should act upon the following:

* Cite Attorney General Gonzales for perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Then proceed with his impeachment.

* End the funding of the Iraq occupation, except for the funds required for the prompt withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

* Proceed with investigations and then indictments for war profiteering, with special attention directed toward Halliburton and its ex-CEO, Dick Cheney.

* At long last, investigate election fraud by e-voting machines, intimidation, and voter disenfranchisement (e.g., through "caging lists").

* Then issue bills of impeachment of Bush and Cheney, followed by investigations, hearings and open debate.

Impeachment is being resisted by "practical" Democratic politicians on the grounds that even if it succeeded in the House, conviction and removal from office would surely fail in the Senate.

I am not at all certain of this, in view of what might result from the House investigations and debate. But this objection misses the point. Ultimate conviction and removal may be less important than the impeachment process and the evidence and prosecution case that would result from it. Once the high crimes and misdemeanors of Bush and Cheney are brought to light, those who vote against impeachment in the House and conviction in Senate may pay a high price at the polls.

In the meantime, what is the progressive citizen and voter to do? Both parties have betrayed the trust of the American public and have violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Thus those of us who are justifiably disgusted with both parties, are faced with daunting dilemma:

One the one hand, should we punish the Democrats by voting for third parties? Such a decision serves to keep the Republicans in power which would keep the culprits forever unaccountable for their crimes.

On the other hand, should we vote for the Democrats, as the lesser of the evils? If so, the party might construe this as public approval of its delinquent behavior.

With much reluctance and regret, I would opt for the latter alternative, all the while putting a well-deserved scare into the ranks of the "establishment" Democrats.

Most immediately, all Democrats who voted for Bush's Iraq resolution and otherwise collaborated with the outlaw regime should be challenged in the primaries. A few might lose their seats to such challenges, though most would not. But even if the challenges fall short, strong showings at the polls by the progressive challengers will send a message: we the people are here, we protest, and we demand to be heard.

If that protest fails to reform the Democrats, then perhaps it will be time to look to third parties. The Democrats must understand that this remains a live option.

Finally, progressives must take a lesson from the religious right and take over the Democratic Party from the bottom up. Get active in local and state party activities, send progressives to the state conventions and then to the national convention. Far better to take control of an existing major party organization than to attempt to build a national organization for a minor party.

The good news for the Democrats is that public approval of Bush is down to around thirty percent. The bad news is that the public approval of the Democratic Congress is not much above that: thirty-seven percent, down from forty-four percent in April. And the worst news is that this poor and declining public opinion of the Democratic Congress is well-deserved.

There is no other way to put it: the Congressional Democratic leadership (with a few honorable exceptions) has failed the American public and has violated its oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We must demand that they wake up and do their duty, assuring them that if they do, they will earn the respect and support of their constituents.

-- EP
Discuss (24 comments) | Recommend (47 votes)

[hijinx87]

13. good heavens.

this is wrong headed.

especially

Create a system which empowers Congress, as (theoretically) the direct representatives of the people, to excercise oversight of the Executive Branch.

as a theoretical point, it is grossly at odds with the spirit of the framers intent. as a practical matter, any restriction that is placed on * will be used as a blunt instrument by the rethugs against a democratic president.

there are actually some solutions to the Dark Terror of *'s Reign that are infinitely worse than just living with the problem for another year and a half. this is absolutely one of them.