Posted on 06/01/2003 12:05:12 PM PDT by SWake
CONSTITUTIONAL Do-over
Why a 1789 guide for a 2003 nation?
By Ken Wheatcroft-Pardue
Special to the Star-Telegram
After invading an impoverished, almost defenseless country and slaughtering its military with a barbarity that would've shocked earlier generations (almost 100 Iraqi defenders killed to every one American), the Bush administration -- seemingly without irony -- now places democracy as the centerpiece of its postwar Iraqi policy.
Time will tell if such talk is mere window dressing, camouflage for imperial designs, but I can think of nothing more important to our collective future than to critically examine our own democracy, warts and all.
Despite strong evidence to the contrary, many Americans believe that their government -- under a Constitution adopted in 1789 -- is the perfect system, "the most democratic country in the world." But self-delusion is not patriotism.
In reality, our system is not all it's cracked up to be. Consider our most recent war, in which a rigorous debate in the British House of Commons before the war was matched by a nonexistent debate here.
Or compare our representatives' fawning obsequiousness during our annual State of the Union address with the catcalls and real debate in the House of Commons when the prime minister stands to answer questions.
The fact is, as compared to other Western democracies, we are deficient in more than debating skills. We have astronomical rates of crime, incarceration, poverty and infant mortality. In almost any meaningful index of quality of life, we lag far behind other Western democracies.
And it should come as no surprise that, according to a study by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United States "ranks 139th in the world in average voter turnout in national elections since 1945." This widespread voter apathy is in reality an index of citizen frustration and alienation from a political system that just doesn't work.
As Daniel Lazare has pointed out in The Frozen Republic, we have suffered for too long "under the terrible Republican-Democratic duopoly" that has "a record of political stagnation without parallel in virtually any other country."
Regardless of what most Americans believe, our Constitution has not been a model for the rest of the democratic world.
In fact, as Yale University professor Robert A. Dahl has written in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, "It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it." Largely because, as Dahl makes clear, our governmental system "is among the most opaque, complex, confusing and difficult to understand."
Our Constitution is the oldest constitution in the Western world, and it's beginning to show its age.
Consider the past 10 years: legislative gridlock and impeachment during one administration and then the (s)election of another president under questionable circumstances -- and all of the above clearly the fault of our 18th-century Constitution.
With its balance of powers, legislative gridlock is stamped into our governmental system like DNA.
Government in America doesn't work, Lazare points out, because it's not supposed to work. In their infinite wisdom, the Founders created a deliberately unresponsive system.
As for impeachment, we borrowed it from the British, who had the good sense to abandon it in the late 18th century because it was a clumsy and inefficient instrument for getting rid of the executive.
Modern democracies don't impeach. If there is a conflict between the executive and legislative branches that cannot be worked out, new elections are called -- not a cumbersome, quasi-judicial proceeding but a political solution to a political problem.
As for our last presidential election, regardless of whom you were for, it revealed clearly that we are not a modern democracy.
Modern democracies do not have elections that remain in doubt for weeks, using ballots that are difficult to read, while at the same time allowing some votes to count more than others because of an arcane method of tabulating votes adopted because of a political compromise more than 200 years ago.
In modern democracies, the first-place vote-getter wins. Period. It is straightforward, transparent and clear, as every good government is and ours is not.
The fact is that our Constitution is not even particularly democratic. Consider the U.S. Senate, the least representative governing body in the Western world.
The practice of having two senators per state is an outrage. In the Senate, less than 1 million Wyomingites have the same amount of representation as 35 million Californians.
As Alexander Hamilton put it, "the practice of parsing out two senators per state shocks too much the ideas of justice and every human feeling." And he said that when the ratio between the most populous state and the least was near 10-to-1, not the obscene 69-to-1 that it is now.
We have put up with the patented absurdities of an unrepresentative Senate and the Electoral College for far too long. A constitution is only a plan of government. There is nothing sacred about it.
The legitimacy of the constitution, Dahl points out, ought to derive solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic government -- nothing more, nothing less.
At the very least, before we attempt to export democracy to the cradle of civilization, we should begin talking about the real deficiencies in our Constitution.
No one still wears white wigs and satin breeches, and no reason exists for us to continue to govern ourselves with an 18th-century document. Other countries with people no more capable than us have recently written new constitutions: Denmark in 1953, the Dutch in 1972 and 1983, and Portugal and Sweden in 1976. What stops us?
------------------------------------------------------
End of article. The following is contained in a sidebar.
Excerpts from modern constitutions:
Netherlands
No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.
Adopted in 1983
Portugal
Everyone has the right to express and make known his or her thoughts freely by words, images, or any other means, and also the right to inform, obtain information, and be informed without hindrance or discrimination.
The exercise of these rights may not be prevented or restricted by any type or form of censorship.
Adopted in 1976
Denmark
Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.
The citizens shall without previous permission be entitled to assemble unarmed. The police shall be entitled to be present at public meetings. Open-air meetings may be prohibited when it is feared that they may constitute a danger to the public peace.
Adopted in 1953
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Wheatcroft-Pardue is a Fort Worth teacher and free-lance writer.
Or English...
Why a 1789 guide for a 2003 nation?
Why not? Age of any guide is no reason to discount it. Hell, the Ten Commandments are older than the U.S. Constitution and they're still 100% on the mark. But if you want to ignore religion, then there's the Hippocratic Oath. That's a guide that's quite old and still as relevant as the day it was first written.
almost 100 Iraqi defenders killed to every one American
Since when did bodycounts give a side any claim to moral high ground? With that sort of ridiculous logic, one can easily paint the Nazis as the "victims" in World War II since more of their soldiers died than did ours!
Despite strong evidence to the contrary, many Americans believe that their government -- under a Constitution adopted in 1789 -- is the perfect system, "the most democratic country in the world." But self-delusion is not patriotism.
Hint: the U.S. is the most perfect system in the world. Sure, it's not perfect...but what government on Earth can honestly claim it is?
In reality, our system is not all it's cracked up to be.
This is usually when the Useful Idiots start praising some Socialist "Democracy" (in which the State is ultimate parent) as the ideal.
Consider our most recent war, in which a rigorous debate in the British House of Commons before the war was matched by a nonexistent debate here.
Ummm...hello! There was loads of debate about the coming war. It was carried out in Congress, on the streets, in City Councils across our nation. And y'know what? The majority (86%) of Americans supported the war. So the minority (a mere 14%) was rightfully ignored.
Or compare our representatives' fawning obsequiousness during our annual State of the Union address with the catcalls and real debate in the House of Commons when the prime minister stands to answer questions.
Catcalls == debate in this guy's mind? He's more screwed up than I originally presumed.
In almost any meaningful index of quality of life, we lag far behind other Western democracies.
Then perhaps the author can explain why the U.S. is the ultimate destination of immigrants across the world? I can't wait to hear that one...
And it should come as no surprise that, according to a study by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United States "ranks 139th in the world in average voter turnout in national elections since 1945."
And I presume this august "Institute" praises the likes of Saddam Hussein for his "100% voter turnout" under his regime?
Look, there's no cure for voter apathy...especially when it's the product of learned helplessness that the Left wing likes to engender in its Victim Class.
This widespread voter apathy is in reality an index of citizen frustration and alienation from a political system that just doesn't work.
That's one opinion. I doubt the author has any evidence to back it up.
Regardless of what most Americans believe, our Constitution has not been a model for the rest of the democratic world.
Which explains why every other free nation has a Constitution that closely resembles our own.
In fact, as Yale University professor Robert A. Dahl has written in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, "It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it." Largely because, as Dahl makes clear, our governmental system "is among the most opaque, complex, confusing and difficult to understand."
Okay, first off...we're not a Democracy. We're a Republic. Secondly, if the validity of a government is based solely on its simplicity, then it is inevitable that the author of this piece champions no other form of government than a tyrannical, totalitarian regime. A government just doesn't get any more clear, simple and straightforward than that.
Our Constitution is the oldest constitution in the Western world, and it's beginning to show its age.
I wonder what this joker has to say about the Bible's teachings as well. Are those guidelines for morality also "showing their age"?
Consider the past 10 years: legislative gridlock and impeachment during one administration and then the (s)election of another president under questionable circumstances -- and all of the above clearly the fault of our 18th-century Constitution.
The author is still obviously steamed about Gore's loss in 2000. As for the Impeachment, am I to believe that's the fault of our Constitution? Last I saw, none of that would have been necessary if our President at the time had been an non-philandering honest man. And on the issue of gridlock, how about we talk about the current Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees, hmmmmmmmmm?
Government in America doesn't work, Lazare points out, because it's not supposed to work. In their infinite wisdom, the Founders created a deliberately unresponsive system.
Nevermind all that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" crap! Just do things the Leftist Way and All Will Be Well! (gag...retch...puke)
Modern democracies don't impeach.
No...modern Presidents don't commit impeachable offenses.
As for our last presidential election, regardless of whom you were for, it revealed clearly that we are not a modern democracy.
On the contrary, it showed our Republic is working just fine, thankyouverymuch. The only ones who think it's broken are the Sore Losers.
Modern democracies do not have elections that remain in doubt for weeks
That's not a reflection of our government; it's a reflection on our legal system that allows anyone not happy with reality to hire an expensive trial lawyer to try to force everyone to believe a lie.
using ballots that are difficult to read
Ballots that were designed and approved by Democrats! (Heaven forbid we point out that inconvenient fact.)
while at the same time allowing some votes to count more than others because of an arcane method of tabulating votes adopted because of a political compromise more than 200 years ago.
I wouldn't mind seeing the Electoral College thrown out in favor of direct elections. I for one am tired of seeing my vote thrown away because all of California's electoral votes go to the idiot Democrats.
In modern democracies, the first-place vote-getter wins. Period.
That's all well and good...but tell me, do those "modern democracies" allow criminals and illegal aliens to vote? Last I saw, the Democrats were bending over backwards to make that possible. Fortunately, our "backward democracy" makes it harder for such things to throw our elections.
The fact is that our Constitution is not even particularly democratic. Consider the U.S. Senate, the least representative governing body in the Western world.
Excuse me, but the whole POINT of the Senate was to allow each State in the Union an EQUAL VOICE in the Legislative Branch! Jesus H. Christ, will someone sponsor this guy's taking a few courses in U.S. Government??
We have put up with the patented absurdities of an unrepresentative Senate and the Electoral College for far too long. A constitution is only a plan of government. There is nothing sacred about it.
Which explains why the Left is always running around trying to gut the Constitution, starting with the Second Amendment!
The legitimacy of the constitution, Dahl points out, ought to derive solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic government -- nothing more, nothing less.
It also happens to be the one document that limits government and spells out the rights of the People. If that's not a sacred document, then nothing is sacred.
At the very least, before we attempt to export democracy to the cradle of civilization, we should begin talking about the real deficiencies in our Constitution.
Any deficiencies -- real or imagined -- can be readily addressed. All you need to do is AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. This can be done via our Republic. If you don't like our system of government, I suggest you try to change the system via the system or move to a nation more in line with your socialist ideals.
Excerpts from modern constitutions:
Netherlands
No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
And this is better than our First Amendment...how? Does the author mean to claim that our press or our citizens have to get "prior permission" to publish their thoughts and opinions?? What a load of bull----.
Adopted in 1983 A full 207 years after our "backward" Constitution. But we're the ones "behind the times"?? Give me a freaking break.
The citizens shall without previous permission be entitled to assemble unarmed. The police shall be entitled to be present at public meetings. Open-air meetings may be prohibited when it is feared that they may constitute a danger to the public peace.
Hint to the idiot author: the armed are citizens, the unarmed are subjects. And the part which reads, "the police shall be entitled" shows what a tyrannical joke that government truly is. Especially when it puts its own fears into its "constitution."
And this jackass admires those "constitutions." Just shows what a joke he is...and what a joke his critique of the U.S. Constitution is.
-Jay
His wife is probably named Fred.
I guess he'd be happier if there had been 100 Americans slaughtered for every Iraqi. Sorry about that, sissy boy.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
If that's his opinion, then why isn't this Clymer sitting in Amsterdam sucking on a hookah instead of cranking out boilerplate for the World Worker's Party?
Maybe, but it's obvious from his ramblings that HE wears the panties!
Is this paper typically running such obviously leftist propaganda without commentary? I thought that Texas had some real solid grounding, how does this run even in an urban paper?
You are correct. This appeared in Sunday's edition of the Star-Telegram in their opinion section, "The Weekly Review". It occupies two-thirds of the front page of this section with no counter opinion published.
I don't think this guy really cares, he, like most leftys, wants to get rid of our current constitution.
I had a lefty teacher back in college, that used to mumble this every now and then, she called the 2nd amendment a relic from the revolutionary war. I always said the same things that shut her up. I'm sure there's a few amendments that we can say are relics of the war, why don't we get rid of that pesky 5th amendment.
Suddenly she loves our dear document all over again. These people will bash and rip on how outdated the constituion is and always whine for a new convention, but when it comes to civil liberties, they love this thing all over again, and even make up new rights they think they see in there.
And it might be nice to extend the Bill of Rights by defining specifically the rights that citizens enjoy that aliens do not.
I have been saying that for years. What is the point of being a US citizen, if there are no privaledges involved. Yes, you can vote, but that should not be the end of it.
My parents came to this country, and after years, finally became american citizens, they had a goal, not only to come to america, but to be americans, they did not push there beliefs on others, they adapated to the american way.
Its sad, that many of these liberals have found ways to circumvent the constitution, and warp it according to there own whims and wants (not needs). My blood boils every time I read a news article that tells me Byrd carries a copy of the constitition with him, I have a feeling he probably crossed out everything he didn't like.
FReegards!
You need to be reminded that there is far more to analysis than simply accepting statistics at face value. On the linked page, Czech Republic, Iceland, Leichenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Singapore, and Slovenia all top the US in Infant mortality, but no one in their right mind believes that the health care in those places is better than US healthcare.
There's a reason that this statistic is misleading, and as I posted before, the reason lies in the way that the definitions are made. "Infant mortality" is defined as the number of deaths of children under 12 months per 1000 live births. For the non-analytically-minded, this is a straight-forward statistic, since they do not consider the differences between the nations themselves. Those above nations have low infant mortality rates most likely because sickly fetuses simply do not survive gestation or the birthing process. In the US, we rescue 16-week-old cocaine-addicted fetuses and actually try to make them viable. Those that do not make it to their first birthday bring down our infant mortality rate. In almost any other nation, they would never have been encouraged to survive to become a statistic. Our exceedingly wonderful medical science community directly contributes to our statistic's "poor" ranking. Of course, this ranking is in the top 10% worldwide, and within three-tenths of one percent of all births of being #1... yet this somehow becomes a "crisis" thanks to those who parrot these numbers without any cogent analytical thinking, implying that we need to be more like Singapore, Slovenia, and/or the Czech Republic for some strange reason. This kind of point-blank substitution of statistical citation for thoughtful analysis is what I dislike.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.