http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/why-political-progressives-need-to-th...
Why Political Progressives Need to Think About the Entire Constitution
March 29, 2012
By Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas Law School, and Professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
I am immensely grateful to be invited to discuss my new book, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance, to the readers of ACSblog. I have crafted these comments in a way that highlights what may be an important difference between my take on the Constitution and that of many of my friends in the ACS. Although many, perhaps most of us, share the perception that the contemporary United States is increasingly caught in a “crisis of governance,” attention tends to be addressed at the defects of particular leaders, including, of course, the present majority of the United States Supreme Court. There is much with which I agree in the vision of The Constitution in 2020 set out in the book co-edited by my friends and casebook co-editors Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel.However, I believe that we cannot begin to diagnose the causes of our crisis by focusing only on what I call the Constitution of Conversation. It can also be described as the litigatedConstitution, and it is litigated precisely because clever lawyers are highly skilled in demonstrating that the indeterminate language of, say, the Commerce or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be used to support a constitutional vision congruent with the collective goals of the lawyers’ clients or perhaps the lawyers themselves (if they are “cause lawyers”). In any event, these conversations are known to all of us, and we see them being spelled out particularly passionately with regard to the Affordable Care Act.But the most important political realities of the Affordable Care Act are first that it took literally more than a half century to pass after initial proposals by Harry Truman and, secondly, that it is a defective bill in many respects with regard genuinely to getting a handle on the costs of a modern medical system. To explain these realities requires no conversation about the “meaning” of the Constitution. Rather, it requires addressing too-often-ignored “civics class” features of the United States Constitution. How does a bill become a law (or, more practically, why do most legislative proposals have only a snowballs chance in hell of being passed)? The answer lies in the almost insurmountable hurdles set up by the particular American system of bicameralism and the opportunity of presidents to veto any legislation they do not like on policy grounds, with the near impossibility of overrides. I will rejoice when the Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act, as I still think is likely. But it should also be recognized that what the Court will be doing, at best, is saying that a mediocre, albeit necessary, piece of legislation is constitutional if it can run the minefield against progressive legislation established in 1787 and left remarkably unchanged since then. That is the importance of looking at the basic “framing” of the Constitution and the assumptions underlying it. It was designed by people who were basically mistrustful of popular democracy and, more particularly, redistributive legislation. They succeeded quite well in creating a political system that stifles both.Moreover, the book looks at the constitutions of the 50 states, almost all of which differ in extremely interesting ways from the national constitution. All but Delaware’s, for example, include at least some element of direct democracy, whereas the national Constitution is committed exclusively to representative democracy. All of the state constitutions include some elements of “positive rights,” the most important example being education. Each and every state constitution is easier to amend than the national constitution. Fourteen state constitutions allow the electorate at regular intervals to vote whether to have a new state constitutional convention. Each and every state follows the rule of “one-person/one vote” established by the Supreme Court in 1964 instead of tolerating the sheer absurdity of an institution like the national Senate and its grant of equal representation to Wyoming and California, Vermont and Texas. Most state judges in the United States are elected—and have limited tenure in office—as distinguished from the national practice of appointed judges (with Senate confirmation) and tenure until death.A century ago, political progressives were well aware of the deficiencies of the national Constitution and put great effort into such amendments as the 16th, 17th, and 19thamendments. Today, that kind of “constitutional imagination,” which requires that one attend to the seemingly dull and boring “structural Constitution”— what I call the Constitution of Settlement — is almost completely absent as we devote almost literally all of our time and attention to the Constitution of Conversation.My deepest hope is that members of the ACS will realized that serious discussion of The Constitution in 2020 should include how it might be necessary to transform basic constitutional structures if we are ever going to achieve the progressive changes in national policy that most of us support.
- Permalink Reply by on
What would the Senate look like without the 17th Amendment?
By | National Constitution Center – Mon, Apr 8, 2013It’s the 100th anniversary of the 17th Amendment, leading us to consider what today’s U.S. Senate would look like if its members weren’t directly elected by voters.
Source: Wikimedia Commons.The answer is simple: It would be probably be controlled by the Republicans, with a chance that it could be a filibuster-proof majority.Related Link: Happy Birthday, 17th Amendment!Given that the House is already controlled by the GOP, laws enacted by the Democrats in the past two years may not have fared well with a Republican-controlled Congress.Prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, state legislatures elected two U.S. senators to represent them in Congress.Members in each state House and each state Senate, in most cases, would meet separately to pick a candidate as its representative in the U.S. Senate.If the two caucuses picked the same person, the race was over and that person was sent to the U.S. Senate. (The elections were staggered so only one senator was chosen every two or four years.) But if different candidates were preferred for that one U.S. Senate seat, the legislatures met in a combined session until they could agree on a selection.This indirect selection method had its flaws. Deadlocks could prevent a state from sending someone to Congress.In a research paper, Wendy Schiller from Brown University and Charles Stewart III from MIT looked extensively at data between 1871 and 1913 about indirect U.S. Senate elections.About 75 percent of the elections were handled quickly within state legislatures, and in 69 percent of cases, a majority party was able to elect the same candidate in each chamber. Other races were resolved in joint assemblies.Only 2 percent of the races ended in a deadlock–but these deadlocks were devastating, because they prevented patronage jobs from being appointed.Jumping forward 100 years, Constitution Daily looked at the current composition of state legislatures to see how the U.S. Senate would look if it reflected how Democrats and Republicans currently control state Houses and Senates.If we consider any state chamber that has a margin between the two parties of less than 10 percent as “undecided,” the breakdown would be 51 seats for the Republicans, 36 for the Democrats, and 15 seats undecided (where chambers have a smaller difference between the parties).Along strict party lines, the GOP would have 58 seats in the U.S. Senate, with 41 seats for the Democrats, and one seat deadlocked. That would put the Republicans within two votes of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.Currently, the Democrats control 53 seats in the U.S. Senate; plus, two independent senators caucus with the Democrats.In 2009, the Senate would have looked different under a Constitution without the 17th Amendment. Before the 2010 midterm elections shifted power at a state level to the Republicans, the Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures, with the GOP in control of 14 states and 8 states with split legislatures.The Democrats lost control of nine state legislatures in those midterm elections, and the Republicans now control 27 state legislatures.The amendment ratified 100 years ago still has its critics, particularly among states’ rights advocates. Just last month, Georgia state legislators proposed a resolution asking Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment.Repeal proponents have pointed to several benefits. Foremost, it gives state governments a direct voice in the federal government and budgeting process, something proponents believe reflect the desire of the Founding Fathers for states to have a dynamic role in Washington.But other factors would make repeal problematic. Only one amendment, the 18th, has ever been repealed, when the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition.The anti-17th Amendment forces would need 38 states to ratify a repeal amendment, which is no small task, since two-thirds of Congress or the states would need to agree to offer one up for ratification votes.And there is the debate over redistricting–specifically, how states each determine the districts that send representatives to the state capital. For example, Pennsylvania currently has 50 U.S. Senate districts and 203 U.S. House districts. Redrawing those districts would be as critical to a U.S. Senate election as redistricting is at a federal level for U.S. House of Representative elections.Another factor would be campaign spending. Millions of dollars of outside money poured into 2012 U.S. Senate elections. According to data from the Campaign Finance Institute, $315 million was spent on U.S. Senate campaigns in 2012. The U.S. Senate race in Virginia has $51 million in spending by itself. Under the pre-1913 voting rules, the candidates for that seat wouldn’t even be in play until after the November general election was over, so there would be no opportunity for special interests to invest in campaigns.On top of these challenges, perhaps the most significant factor preventing repeal would be what helped the amendment pass in the first place–the idea that the direct election of senators, giving power to the people rather than the states, is the most democratic approach.Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Make sure to read the part about PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX - the beginning of the PROGRESSIVE LIE - SOAK THE RICH. charitable foundations and Trusts sheltered the rich . . just like today Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and their 60+ Billion dollar charitable trust that they still control and paid ZERO TAXES ALL THAT MONEY.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-taxation-in-t...
HISTORY OF TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATESarticlevprojecttorestoreliberty.comsource efile.com The Definition of Income Tax: The income tax is a direct tax which is levied on the net income
- Permalink Reply by on
How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance
There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:- Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
- Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
- Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.
Why is Cognitive Dissonance Important?
Cognitive dissonance plays a role in many value judgments, decisions and evaluations. Becoming aware of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making process is a great way to improve your ability to make faster and more accurate choices.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- l522 . . elections will not make the necessary corrections - Simple is good but not always adequate to carry the day -IT IS MY OPINION THAT:
All Conservatives must stand back and take a real hard look at the body politics. First is that if we demand Social and fiscal Conservatives only about 20% of Republics registered classify themselves to fit this mold. Such a Candidate as this would not be electable in the entire North East, Lake States, and most of the West coast States.
This would lead to a guaranteed Progressive Democrat landslide in every election. This would result in a veto proof Senate and House lead by a Democrat President - that is exactly what happened in 2008 and then again 2012 when 4 million less voted.
I have seen this before - let us consider the issue of NATIONAL POLITICS. The House and the Senate can not be won by the R's unless they take more moderate position on many issues - it has always been this way - the Rockefeller Republicans - all middle of the road country club types, and the entire east coast and west coast is comprised of that persuasion.
Conservatives make up about 30 to 40% of the voting public depending on the poll - now voting is different - 47% as Romney said have been bought and paid for with tax dollars from the Democrats and Republicans but the R's get no credit for any Progressive programs and they had many . . so now if you take a 100% conservative view point you will have your hat handed to you as has happened in California, NY, Mass, Oregon, Washington, the NE, Florida, ND, SD, Mont. and more are just not supporting hard conservative options.
So, to stand tall on one side of a teeter-doter and have those on the center right and left of center stand on the other - when they jump the Conservatives will be tossed in the ocean and lost forever. It is pure foolishness to even think that way = total losing theory - these people will not even get 170 elected to the national House and maybe 30 Senators at best.
AV is the only way - no money or power in DC they will all leave and then those leaning conservative will move to conservative States and the left will have their own. My bet is soon the left loses most of the States as they, like California go broke with broken promises all over their States.
Elections will not fix our nations problems at this point in time as history has shown us being ruled by Progressives in both parties - only the Article V State amendment process can save the REPUBLIC and that will require all fiscal or social or center rights to unite and pressure the State legislatures [38 States] to do the repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments.
If we can not do this then it is game over and the Progressives holding a lock on 48% of the entire population by bribing them with our tax money. Then you add the center left and they will get 55% + in every election except maybe 8 to 10 States.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment