US Constitution

[American2020]

Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/constitution-founders-democracy-trump.html

Discuss.

[KingSweden]

“Democracies” in the Madisonian context referred to what we today would call direct democracy, by referenda or initiative

[Progressive Pessimist]

The constitution needs some severe reform. It's not sacrilege to say that, by the way, that's we have the amendment process, damn it! I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it needs to be thrown out and redone but we do need to pass some more amendments to update our seriously dated political systems and processes, especially after Trump. The Founding Fathers' visions just aren't sustainable.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

The Constitution isn't some magical spell that has somehow decayed and needs to be re-empowered with a new ritual. It's a (for it's time amazingly good) set of firm suggestions on how to operate a government that is decent, just, and free.

The problem we are facing now has little to do with the Constitution. The root of the problem is a segment of our society that actively wants bad government and that has no use for democracy of any sort (except as a tool for seizing power). Bad actors need to be removed from power.  Ignorance needs to be reduced to political irrelevance. The influence of those acting for purely selfish motives needs to be curtailed.

Then, when we actually have a functioning, representative government working for the benefit of "We The People", we can talk about updating our rules for how that government needs to be implemented. Re-writing the Constitution now would be an open invitation to all the worst elements of our society to a cannibalistic feast. If I hear or see any evidence that a Constitutional Convention is even possibly likely, I am leaving and not even looking back. ("Hey there, we're neck-deep in this disease-ridden swamp, but my chest pain is preventing me from swiming out. How about we perform some open-heart surgery right here, right now?")

[Joseph-Michael]

The constitution is divided into two parts in my view. The first is the frame of government, and the second is the declaration of liberties.

The first part is much more well-defined, and I believe it is what we should be replacing. We should be severely limiting the power of the senate, dramatically increasing the number of representatives, introducing proportional representation (I prefer approval voting to ranked-choice, but anything's better than FPTP), introducing more direct democracy measures, making the amendment process easier, and so forth, this is just what's on the top of my head.

[Sir Mohamed]

I strongly support the constituation and is one of the best documents ever. It should be amended, though, as it has with time: Overturn Roe v. Wade, end Gerrymandering and, if needed, modify the second amendment so that more regulation is possible.

Mainly, I agree with this. Especially the second part.

The Constitution isn't some magical spell that has somehow decayed and needs to be re-empowered with a new ritual. It's a (for it's time amazingly good) set of firm suggestions on how to operate a government that is decent, just, and free.

The problem we are facing now has little to do with the Constitution. The root of the problem is a segment of our society that actively wants bad government and that has no use for democracy of any sort (except as a tool for seizing power). Bad actors need to be removed from power.  Ignorance needs to be reduced to political irrelevance. The influence of those acting for purely selfish motives needs to be curtailed.

Then, when we actually have a functioning, representative government working for the benefit of "We The People", we can talk about updating our rules for how that government needs to be implemented. Re-writing the Constitution now would be an open invitation to all the worst elements of our society to a cannibalistic feast. If I hear or see any evidence that a Constitutional Convention is even possibly likely, I am leaving and not even looking back. ("Hey there, we're neck-deep in this disease-ridden swamp, but my chest pain is preventing me from swiming out. How about we perform some open-heart surgery right here, right now?")

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

And.... here we go:

Conservatives call for constitutional intervention last seen 230 years ago

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

Well since I favor the US going to a parliamentary system, I guess my choice is "replacement."

[136or142]

Well since I favor the US going to a parliamentary system, I guess my choice is "replacement."

I would also strongly recommend where we seem to be heading in Canada: an independently appointed upper house of well rounded 'semi experts' to counter the craven elected lower House.  Interestingly, before coming up with the U.S Senate model of appointments by craven state legislators, there were a number of state Constitutional Conventions in the 1780s that considered this idea for the U.S Senate.

[Torie]

Well since I favor the US going to a parliamentary system, I guess my choice is "replacement."

I would also strongly recommend where we seem to be heading in Canada: an independently appointed upper house of well rounded 'semi experts' to counter the craven elected lower House.  Interestingly, before coming up with the U.S Senate model of appointments by craven state legislators, there were a number of state Constitutional Conventions in the 1780s that considered this idea for the U.S Senate.

What power would  this unelected body have in Canada? Who would appoint these "well round semi experts" (gosh that is a mouthful ) ?

[136or142]

Well since I favor the US going to a parliamentary system, I guess my choice is "replacement."

I would also strongly recommend where we seem to be heading in Canada: an independently appointed upper house of well rounded 'semi experts' to counter the craven elected lower House.  Interestingly, before coming up with the U.S Senate model of appointments by craven state legislators, there were a number of state Constitutional Conventions in the 1780s that considered this idea for the U.S Senate.

What power would  this unelected body have in Canada? Who would appoint these "well round semi experts" (gosh that is a mouthful ) ?

'Well rounded semi experts' is my term, but that is essentially what they are looking for.  They don't want people who are narrow experts in one field, but nor do they seem to be looking for generalists.

To answer in reverse order
1.https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/independent-advisory-board-for-senate-appointments/members.html

It is 'advisory board' because under the Canadian Constitution only the Prime Minister can make appointments to the Senate.

2.The essential power is described in Canada as providing 'sober second thought' to the legislation from the House of Commons.  The Canadian Senate apparently has a great deal of power but it has rarely exercised it.  At this point, the power for the Canadian Senate is still in flux because we are in a transition period as there are still a lot of old patronage appointments in the Senate (especially on the Conservative side.)  The remaining old Liberal appointments were thrown out of the Liberal Parliamentary caucus by Justin Trudeau and refer to themselves as 'independent Liberal Senators.'

A number of these 'independent Liberals' have since quit the Liberal Party to sit as true independents.

The basic power this 'hybrid' Senate seems comfortable with seems to be one to make amendments to Commons legislation which the Commons then has the choice of either accepting or rejecting (in whole or in part.)  So, the idea at this point is to ultimately defer to the House of Commons but to provide a possible counterweight to short term public sentiments. When the Senate is fully independent and effectively appointed by the independent body, it may start to flex more of its powers including outright rejecting Commons legislation.  The Senate does also have the power to initiate legislation, except, I believe as in the U.S, on money bills.

Even when the Senate was filled with patronage appointments, although their committee hearings could be a mixed bag depending on whether the Senators took their job seriously or not, the Senate Committee hearings (especially on defense issues) were generally regarded as significantly superior to the Commons committee hearings.

I.E serious questions to witnesses and not questions designed to score partisan political points.

" One of its most effective functions is the quiet, in-depth study and review of national issues (including the hearing of expert witnesses) by Senate Committees. Committees go over proposed bills clause by clause and often hear voluminous evidence, sometimes over a period of months. "

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/senate/

[136or142]

One of my biggest concerns with the independent Canadian Senate is that it's possible the most capable people would rather sit in the Senate than in the House of Commons.  However, since the Senate only has 105 positions available, most people will still have to run for Commons seats.

[Torie]

The concept of a senate in Canada seems similar to what the House of Lords once was in the UK, with the power to delay, but not stop. How long could the senate in Canada manage to delay things? Until the next session of the lower house or whatever it would be called?

[136or142]

The concept of a senate in Canada seems similar to what the House of Lords once was in the UK, with the power to delay, but not stop. How long could the senate in Canada manage to delay things? Until the next session of the lower house or whatever it would be called?

Well, as I wrote, it's all in flux. Technically, the Canadian Senate has the same powers the House of Commons has with the sole exception of being able to initiate money bills.

The Canadian Senate has the power to kill legislation not just delay it, and, in terms of delaying, the Conservatives in the Senate delayed the votes on the marijuana legalization legislation and the changes to the Canadian national anthem for several weeks if not months.  With the national anthem changes, the Liberals ultimately had to use parliamentary maneuvers to get them passed (most of the independent Senators supported the changes.)

Had these pieces of legislation not passed in the Senate before the prorogation of Parliament, they would have died and would have had to have been reintroduced in the House again.

So, at present, part of the problem is that the Conservatives have embraced the idea of an independent Senate with more powers, however they are all voting in lock step and not as independents.  

They accuse the independent Senators of being 'Liberals in all but name' but increasingly the newly appointed independent senators are the ones who are coming up with practical amendments to Commons legislation, as opposed to the Conservative Senators whose proposed amendments are frequently nothing more than dishonest poison pills.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-senators-make-final-pitches-for-against-legalizing-cannabis-as-vote/