Maybe I was wrong. Tyranny is relative. Like this guy. Sorry about the christmas theme but it seemed apt.
That used to be simply called an embarrassment of riches. In any case, being paralyzed by modern prosperity isn’t really any different than being paralyzed by straitjacket-like social functions, i.e. for a formal 19th-century Victorian dinner, everything must be just so, or the evening is a failure. To that end, all the roles of the diners and the servers end up following a strict script, and any violation of that script (i.e. a diner getting drunk, a server spilling a tray, an “impolite” topic of conversation is raised) becomes a major disaster and a social black mark that can persist for years.
Even in other situations, when you suddenly run into a rude/drunk/mentally ill person, it’s natural to be somewhat befuddled because you’re uncertain how to proceed and your upbringing didn’t prepare you for this contingency. Fortunately, you can train yourself to take things in stride and jump right in with a take-no-bullshit attitude. Similarly, when given a huge number of choices, you make one and live the consequences, which are usually only bad if you choose to define them as such.
Meh. It looks like Barry Schwartz couldn’t find anything to whine about, so he decided to whine about not having anything to whine about.
Anyhoo, the constitution. Well…
Well, here’s the kicker. The benefit to the majority offered by a ban on flag burning and partial-birth abortions is pretty trivial (how does someone else burning a piece of brightly-coloured cloth really hurt you, and are so-called “partial-birth” abortions common enough to be a concern?) and trying to ban these specific acts are not “magic bullet” solutions that only target a guilty few. Having such a law gives a lot of discretion to police officers and can end up entrapping people whose intent is not criminal at all:
[ul][li]Can any piece of red, white and blue cloth count as a flag? If a protestor makes up a “flag” without the requisite 13 stripes and 50 stars that clearly suggests the U.S. flag, does that count?[/li][li]Do other degradations, such as walking on a flag, count as well?[/li][li]If someone cuts and eats a cake with a flag pattern on it, does that count?[/li][li]The “partial birth” abortion is more properly known as a Dilation & Extraction (D&X) procedure. There are any number of health reasons this may prove necessary. The unpleasant nature of the procedure is not valid reason to put patients at risk.[/li][/ul]
You’ve chosen two emotion-packed issues that might be banned if a simple majority vote was the deciding factor. If anything, it proves that a constitution is vital to prevent emotions, rather than calm reason, from forming the law. I like your “As for an issue I agree with”, which implies to me that you don’t favour these bans. Well, then why are you arguing for a system that you believe will pass legislation you don’t like?
And efforts to abolish the EC failed. Well, the system was set up so changes couldn’t be made hastily or capriciously, so if there truly was a need to abolish the EC, to campaign to do so will have to be very patient and thorough. That need remains unproven, though. It’s quite easy to get people to say the EC should be dumped, because superficially it seems very elitist and whatnot (incorrectly, it turns out, since the state electors are pledged to do what the people tell them), but how much suffering has really been inflicted by the EC’s existence? Good luck convincing 34 state legislatures of that suffering.
In any case, the U.S. Constitution typically defines three things:
[list=1]
[li]How the government is organized (there have been a few changes)[/li][li]Who can vote for elected officials (this has been expanded several times, as well as changes like who can elect senators)[/li][li]What limits are placed on government actions[/li][/list=1]
There have only been a few times an amendment was passed that gave the government extra powers, and I’m not counting the abolishment of slavery. The authorization of income taxes may be odious to a taxpayer, but it was arguably necessary. That can’t be said of Prohibition, because alcohol was not destroying the country, and its restriction did not make the nation stronger or more moral. The fact is, anytime you consider using the constitution to ban something, you should think twice, and three times, and four times. You might see a majority vote on the constitution as offering more freedom for the nation, but the majority is just as likely to ban an activity as they are to legalize it. Open-ended banning of activity most definitely leads to tyranny, because banning an activity does nothing to eliminate the desire for that activity. It’s a incredibly dangerous and slippery slope that follows this cycle:
[ul]
[li]The nation is imperfect.[/li][li]Clearly someone is to blame.[/li][li]Try to identify the people who are making the nation imperfect and punish them.[/li][li]Such people are almost always an easily identifiable minority, performing a specific set of actions or harbouring certain beliefs. It doesn’t matter how much effect they’re actually having, but what effect the majority of people can be convinced they are having.[/li][li]Since the majority does not perform these actions or hold these beliefs, they have no objection to criminalizing the minority by popular vote.[/li][li]The nation is still imperfect.[/li][li]The criminalization is expanded to other groups of people, or to people who seem sympathetic to the criminalized group of people, or the punishments are made more severe.[/li][li]Repeat endlessly, since no limits are in place and perfection can never be achieved.[/li][li]Gradual result; tyranny by inches. No individual can speak out on any subject unless reassured the majority already agrees.[/li][/ul]
This is a very likely end result of what you are proposing, yet you duck responsibility for it and claim some vague notion of equality as your justification. Unlike choosing a Christmas present, this isn’t simply a matter of making a trivial decision and living with it. Amending the Constitution has huge effects that can last for decades and while it may improve the lives of some, it can screw up the lives of many others.
If you want to replace the EC with a direct popular vote, fine. The idea may have some merit. As soon as you go beyond that issue and claim the U.S. Constitution and the amendment process represent tyranny, though, I sincerely hope there will always be enough people around with a take-no-bullshit attitude ready to challenge you.
This is where Condorcet voting has an advantage - the pairings (Chinese vs. Mexican, Mexican vs. Italian, Italian vs. Chinese) happen simultaneously, so if there really is a perfect cycle, it will be immediately clear that the majority has no preference.
**This I think is the crux of our disagreement. I am not shopping around for a government that makes the decisions I want it to. I prefer one that makes the decisions the voters want it to. The definition of rights is a fundamental task of government. I see no reason to accept less than an equal say in it. Who is to decide then, if not the majority? Ah, you don’t care. It could be a king or a Doge so long as they make the choices you wish.
There are no guarantees. But the Nazis never had a majority even with the intimidation they used and those tactics wouldn’t have been tolerated in a mature democracy. **
Was it not tyrannical for authorities to stand aside and let lynchings occur? It isn’t only governments which victimiize people. The government that tolerates such behavior is an accomplice.
My opinion, to remind you, is based upon the premise that an entire system of government is imposed upon Americans without our consent. If you are going to disparage it you might want to actually address it first.
Again, what does a radical democracy have which would prevent this? You’ve said, twice now, that a democracy would not have permited this, but you have failed to suggest the mechanism or principle which would have prevented it.
Quite so. Unfortunately this example does not even come close to butressing your point. Laws against murder have been enacted (by the majority BTW) in all of the states. That certain officials chose not to enforce them is not an example of tyranny by the minority through the constitution. Please try again,
I did address it a couple times. Your assertion that the constitution is imposed on Americans is silly on the face of it. There is a well known and understood process for changing any portion whatsoever of the Constitution. At any time the people can vote on it in part or in whole. They have in fact chosen to do this a couple times in our history. Your assertion that the constitution is imposed on us is therefore silly on its face.
Do you have a list of amendments that were proposed, agreed to by the majority, but rejected by the minority? Do you have a list of ammendments which the minority was able to pass against the wishes of the majority? Do you have any reason to believe that opposition to the constitution is anything except a poor understanding of it?
Does anyone remember the segment of the man show which found many women willing to sign a petition to end women’s sufferage?
I’m sorry to suggest this because I always hate to accuse people of it, but your assertions are unfounded. Super majorities are not undemocratic. Especially when they are limited to changing the rules under which votes are counted, and what sorts of loaws for which they can be counted.
One last thing. I would like you to defend your assertion that the Constitution amounts to a tool for maintaining elite families in power. This thesis was put forward several years ago by a historian who looked at the founding fathers. He found that they were all land owners, rich, white, etc. His thesis was debunked soundly by a later historians who examined the document itself. The theory that the Constitution enforces a minority elite on the majority amounts to identifying that we have only had a few presidents and noting that they were all white and rich. It is the weakest form of ad hominem attack I have come across.
I am, of course, willing to be proven wrong. If you have any evidence that any of your complaints are valid (remember that everyone agrees that portions of our government are not subject ot majority whim, you have simply not shown why this is ungood) please provide it.
**
I guess we’re just going to have to disagree on how government policy should be set. Also, you can feel free to scream “minority rule” all you want but nobody here has advocated it. I certainly haven’t.
**
Abysmal compared to how many other kinds of governments?
**
For the most part I think we do a pretty decent job protecting the minority. Of course you can look back throughout our history to see how harmful the majority can be if left unchecked and I wouldn’t pretend otherwise.
How’s this for irony? You complain because the Constitution isn’t democratic enough because it goes by “minority” rule. However I think if you checked you’d find yourself in the minority when it comes to think our government isn’t legitimate. The majority has spoken and they seem to agree that the government is legitimate.
Marc
Oh, I love it when new terminology is introduced in a losing argument. What exactly is a “mature” democracy? In what specific ways was Germany in 1933 less “mature” than the U.S. in 2003 (or, for that matter, than the U.S. in 1933)?
If anything, the rise of the Nazis proves the need for a specific set of rules that can’t be easily changed even in the crisis of a Great Depression; rules which limit government action so thugs cannot get into office and then act with impunity.
A set of rules that can’t be easily changed… hmmm, could that be… a constitution?
I wanted to clarify my position in response to 2sense’s comments. Now, there are some people who are never going to agree with me at all, and I think 2sense is probably one of them. I realize this, and I accept the fact that you’re wrong (no offense intended. I would say ‘in my opinion, you’re wrong,’ but everything I say is my opinion. I happen to think my opinion is better than yours; that’s why it’s my opinion). Anyway, here’s my attempt to convince those that can be convinced.
My position is that certain acts are nonnegotiably wrong. There are some decisions the government makes that are perfectly legitimate grounds for majority governance; for instance, when we decide whether or not to sign a treaty with another nation. When I said I don’t care who’s making decisions, I exaggerated; I was mainly basing that off the idea that if you can’t be forced to do anything, you don’t care who it is who isn’t forcing you to do things. However, given that there is some legitimate scope for government action, majority governance is important. In any case where we accept that the government may legitimately act, majoritarianism is fine.
However, certain acts are actively immoral, and may not be done however many people support them. If I want to murder someone, I’m wrong. If my friend and I get together and decide to murder someone, we’re both wrong. If the entire city of New Orleans gets together and decides to murder someone, that’s wrong. If I decide that a certain opinion may not be voiced, and use force to prevent others from voicing that opinion, I’m wrong. If two of us get together and decide that, we’re wrong. If everyone who’s participated in this thread decides 2sense shouldn’t be allowed to advocate strict majoritarianism, we’re wrong—though, perversely enough, under the majoritarianism he’s defending we’d be right. Morality is not a matter of majority rule; it’s an absolute.
The obvious rejoinder—and this is where it gets tricky—is that there’s disagreement about what those moral rules are, which is obviously true. But if you accept that people legitimately disagree about the content of morality, then one person shouldn’t force his views of morality on another person. This leads in turn to the theorem that you can’t force your beliefs on others, and you can’t force another to act contrary to his beliefs. This means that the subjectivity of morality itself creates an objective rule against forcing others to accept your beliefs; the only stable groundwork for a debate about morality is the idea that forcing another to accept your beliefs is wrong.
Thus, we have a democratic system that allows people to negotiate what they believe should be done; but the premise that must underlie this system is that each person has an absolute right to his own opinion, that you can’t force anyone to give up his beliefs and his right to express them, either at the ballot box or on the soapbox. Even an overwhelming majority can’t force another person to give up his beliefs; to quote John Stuart Mill (and yes, I know there’s no warrant in this statement, but it’s a good summary) in his book On Liberty (which you all should read; it’s common-domain, so it’s available online):
“But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself…this, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.
No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest…
I deny the right of the people to exercise…coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
This is the ground of the absolute, constitutional right: that no man may force another to hold or pretend an opinion other than his own.
**You are entitled to your opinion.
**
In your opinion, what is the goal? Democracy in itself is not a goal in any sense that I can think of. Is your goal liberty? Prosperity? Security?
But I have. The principle is majority rule. The Nazis never had a majority. And the size of their delegation in the Reichstag was due in part to intimidation. If Germany had a mature democracy, that is- one with well developed and widely respected democratic institutions, such lawlessness would not have been tolerated.
Why should I? You objected to my point because only action constituted tyranny. Since you now agree that inaction also can be tyranny I don’t need to try again. I simply wait for you to get back to my original assertion. Here it is: “When a policy is raised there are those who favor it and those who do not. If a supermajority of 3/5 or 2/3 or whatever is required to enact that policy then when more than half but less than the required proportion favor it what do you have? A majority favor the policy and a minority opposes it but it doesn’t get enacted. I call that “minority rule”. The government is following the policy favored by the few rather than by the many.”
** On the contrary, the only time “the people” have voted on the Constitution was when Rhode Island rejected it in 1788.
No. It is enough that it can happen. Do I need to explain how a minority can stop a majority from amending the Constitution? **
Certainly. There are my own reasoned reservations. In this thread I have not only offered logical objections to certain features but have corrected misconceptions of the Constitution by many of its supporters, including you in this very post. It seems the weight of the evidence here then is that it’s the supporters of the Constitution that tend to fail to grasp it. I wouldn’t call this a representative sample though.
I’m not sorry you have suggested it. I’m only regret that you aren’t backing it up. Repeating your assertions doesn’t lend them credence.
Charles Beard is long dead. ( So is his wife who by some accounts accounted for the lion’s share of “his” work. ) While it’s true that Economic Interpretation has been largely discredited it remains an important work. While its many flaws are apparent to us now in its day it was light years ahead of the sentimental crap they were calling “history”. Critical thinking isn’t possible when a subject is above criticism. The Beards paved the way for the modern understanding that some of us have of the Framers as men instead of as immaculate heroic figures. The interpretation was more complex than you give it credit for but as you say, it has been debunked. Still, the basic outline of selfinterested men building a government in their own interests continues to be argued today. Today no one believes it was as cut and dried as the Beards assumed with “realty” and “personalty”. They missed the genuine effects of ideology. Ideology isn’t independent of interest but it can’t be dismissed as irrelevant either. I doubt you would find any reputable historian today to dispute that the Framers generally were seeking a government run by “the better sort”, that is- men like themselves.
As for the idea that the Constitution favors the elite, of course it does. Maintaining the status quo is the primary interest of the elite. They want to remain elite.
I have already explained how the Constitution allows minorities to overrule the majority. No one has been able to refute those accusations either so whether you accept the term “minority rule” or not the objections remain. Since you seem unable to defend your belief that our system protects rights I guess we will have to disagree. I am content to weigh my considered and well defended position that things are unfair against your unsupported assertion that rights are protected. **
When has the majority spoken? As I’ve said if the majority did vote for it I would consider it legitimate.
** You misunderstand me. My principles, though relative rather than absolute, do not change when they are unpopular. If that were true I wouldn’t be arguing this position. I have my policy preferences, I just am not willing to impose them upon others. If you introduce bias in government without the consent of the people then that is what you have done. No matter how benevolent the principle it is still coercion.
I care about justice. The only government I can see as just is one in which everyone has an equal say or as close to it as possible.
No, you have not. The majority DID in fact put up with it. What would a “mature democracy” to use your own phrase done about the Nazis?
Nope. Again, you failed to understand the principle which you are attacking. I have not said that action is the only form or tyranny. I have said that initiation of force is tyranny. Force. Not action. The difference is so monumental I cannot express my disapointment at your failure to grasp it.
No, again. The government is not following the minority policy simply by vetoing another policy. Remember, we are not talking about which person should be elected congressmen in a particular election. We are not talking about whether some law should be passed or not. We are talking about the principles under which the government operates. That is, whether post facto laws should be fair game, or treason should be more braodly defined than “aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war”. The constitution does not allow the minority to enact new amendments over majority objections. You have not changed enough dictionaries to redefine “rule” to mean what you want.
Again, you fail to apply even your own silly logic. The congress (representitives of the people) and the various state legislators(again, representitives of the people) have quite often raised the possibility of ammending the constitution. They do so every year. Most such amendments are laughed out of the running. the vast majority of the people do not want to change it in any subsantative way. Are you now claiming that only a direct democracy is a democracy? I thought you acknowledged that representitive democracy counted as well in the begining.
No, you have to explain that such a process is a problem. You have said that it is undemocratic. For your odd definition of democratic this is true. But you have failed to suggest a single thing that would be different under your system. Meanwhile suggestions have been made how things would be worse. Perhaps it is time to examine your motives.
I am going to refrain from laughin at the second sentence. the question which you failed to address in this answer refered to the polls you linked to earlier. I was not refering to your or any other poster’s understanding of the constitution. Is there any evidence that people understand whatever objection to the constitution they have which that polls perports to measure? Did they ask more substantive questions than “is the constitution good?”
As to the last sentence, I need a cite or an appology. You most certainly did not correct my understanding of any of the text, interpretation, or meaning of the constitution. Please provide a quote where I mistakenly suggested anything about the document and you corrected me, or appologize for lying.
Quite so. The paragraph you quoted summarized the arguments I made in the rest of that post.
Agreed. They had a fear of the people which seems odd to us today. This is, IMHO, a point in their favor. They feared the general populace and yet they created a document which gave this populace many checks on the power of an elite in the government. They overcame this fear and established a govenrment for the people by the people and of the people. Your perverted reinterpretation of the concepts of tyranny and freedom not withstanding.
Do you ever read your responses? Saying that elites want to remain elite is not even close to proof that particular elites in early America enacted a government which perpetuated their elite status. Where is the Adam’s family? Where are the Washingtons? Can you trace the familial administrations or dynasties which we have had? Bush and Adams are so notable because they are so unique.
Let’s be clear about something. I am not a worshiper of the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. I have many objections to what was enacted and the way it has been interpreted over the years. My primary objection is that too many people try and call the American form of government a democracy. It is not. It is a Constitutional Republic. It is a republic which united several independant states into a nation.
But calling this form of government tyranny or even elitist without a shred of evidence that tyranny or an oligarchy has resulted is not only wrong headed, it is just silly. Seriously, you need to suggest some policies that amount to tyranny of the minority. You need to point to some elite families which maintained their elite status by apeal to the constitution.
I really need to take a chill pill. This thread has me far too excited.
I’m going to try and make a point without getting so snippy.
When an accused is tried for a serious crime, the law often requires a super majority of the jury for conviction. In some cases unanimity is required. In such cases, a single juror can change the outcome. In other situations, only 2/3rds or 3/4ths are required. INAL, but I don’t know of any cases where a simple majority is sufficient for conviction.
There are many differences between voting for changes in the constitution and convicting an accused citizen. But the principle that some decisions require more than a simple majority is the same. Specifically, the government is held to a standard of proof to which it has to adhere to the satisfaction of 8, 9, or all 12 jurors. This is not the same as claiming that 5, 4, or 1 juror can tyranize the government.
The constitution defines our form of government. Changes to it must be more than 50% popular before they can be enacted. But this is far from the same thing as a minority “ruling” the country.
The Senate provides a way for states to maintain a semblance of soverignty. It allows people to enact their own quirks on the republican form of government without fear that more populace states will rule them. It does not allow small states to “rule” the larger states. This is a very simple and logical extension of the principle of representitive rule. When we elect congressmen we do not require that they poll their consituents on every bill. We certainly don’t legally require them to vote only based on the results of such polls. They vote in Congress as a representitive of their district with a mandate gained by their election. Senetors operate the same way. Even the way the founding fathers envisioned state governments appointing Senators was an extension of this. State governments were guaranteed to be “republican in form”. And so even the appointment of Senators was simply an extension of representitive rule. The Senate itself, far from being tyranical or elitist, is merely an extension of the peoples right to a self determined state government. It is a check on the federal house of representitives which prevents larger states from gaining more power over smaller states. That is, it is an extension of democratic principle of self determinism.
Objections to the Ellectoral College are very popular and just as mistaken. The president is meant to represent the executive wishes of the nation as a whole, not simply the popular majority. As such the amount of power each voter has to elect the president is determined state by state. More popular states certainly get more votes. But small states are not made irrellevent, no matter how small they are. That is, people in small states are guaranteed a say.
In addition, the EC may in fact give individual voters more power than a straight popular election. (for a given definition of power)I refer you to the article I linked to earlier. If you read it before don’t this time. I only add the link for completeness, and since my last reference was quite a ways back.
Judges are not “democratic” to avoid mob justice. That is, they are in office to administer justice according to the law. Not according to momentary popular whim. They are, however, democratic in the sense that they are appointed by representitives of the people, and they are subject to laws passed by those representitives. Judicial review does not amount to rule by minority either. Judges are only allowed to review laws passed. They cannot “legislate from the bench” (conservative objections noted). In addition, they cannot review any law they please. They must have a case with agrieved parties.
I think I addressed all of the points in the OP. So, to sum up.
The system certainly has its problems. But I find none of the objections you raised germaine to any of these problems. Further, I don’t think that you have suggested a single substantive problem that more of your form of “democracy” could address. You have also failed to point to a single group of elites who were kept in power by the federal government.
If you understand that the principle of democracy does not mean only “will of 50% +1” then the Constitution is quite democratic. If you are willing to examine the evidence, you will find that the government of the United States of America has been successfull in the practical goals of “form[ing] a more perfect union, establish[ing] justice, insur[ing] domestic tranquility, provid[ing] for the common defense, promot[ing] the general welfare, and secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. So, from a principled and practicle standpoint the constitution is a good form of government indeed.
I care about justice. The only government I can see as just is one in which everyone has an equal say or as close to it as possible.
Well, justice is a very subjective concept. Liberty, prosperity, and security are less so. Most people can agree when they are free or oppressed, rich or poor, safe or unsafe. Few can agree on what is fair or not fair, just or not just. Once again, you seem to be concentrating on democracy for democracy’s sake. The idea that everyone has an equal say is an end in itself.
In support of adaher’s statement, I have to ask how exactly more “democracy” would make the United States a stronger, freer nation. What improvements does the OP anticipate will follow from his changes that justify changing the current system?
It’s okay to say “it would be nice if…” and suggest some alternate way of doing things, but the OP’s left out the necessary steps of:[ul][li]How are such changes implemented, given the lack of available magic wands?[/li][li]What tangible positive effects do you expect to happen? How will the changes prompt them? What happens if the positive effects don’t occur?[/li][li]What tangible negative effects could occur? How will you deal with them?[/ul][/li]
And I also asked what exactly comprises a “mature democracy”. I’ve yet to see a satisfactory answer. Germany in 1933 did have well-established democractic mechanisms. The problem was that the ruthlessness of the Nazi party was able to cow rival politicians and large segments of the population. The best defense against this it to limit governmental power (even if that government is popular) and to ensure basic human rights, those of individual and minority segments of the population, are protected and cannot be abolished. The best way to get this defense is with a well-defined constitution and an incorruptable court system. I don’t see how pure democracy encourages either of these.
Just for our edification, can you point to the part of the Michigan constitution which requires it be submitted to the people every 16 years? Does this section define how such an election works?
He may be conflating two seperate methods of amendment.
Article XII, Section 2 describes the procedure for getting an amendment passed by popular vote. At least 10% of the voters, defined as the number of people who voted in the previous gubernatorial race, have to sign a petition in favour of the amendment. The proposed amendment, as well as details on the effects on existing amendments, has to be published at least 60 days prior to the general election. If the proposed amendment is approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question, it becomes part of the Michigan constitution 45 days after the election. In this sense, the constitution can be amended directly by “the people”.
Article XII, Section, 3, though, contains the “16 year” part. Starting in 1978, and every 16 years thereafter, the electorate is asked if they want to call a constitutional convention. If a majority agree, then each representative district and each senatorial district can elect a delegate to the convention, and the delegates can hash out whatever changes they see fit. At least 90 days after the dust settles, the proposed amendments (or a proposed whole new constitution) created at the convention are put to popular vote. I’m kind of curious if anything happened in 1978 or 1994, and if anyone’s gearing up for 2010.
In any case, the Michigan constitution is not automatically put up for grabs every 16 years. The majority could conceivably be thwarted, something along the lines of the following hypothetical situation:
In 2010, a grassroots movement to radically amend the constitution builds. A majority of voters support creating a convention during the election. Delegates are then elected, but because pro-amendment voters are scattered throughout the state, the majority vote in each of (or most of) the districts elects an anti-amendment delegate. The convention gets filled with delegates who vote against any major change. What changes they do approve are submitted to the electorate, who votes them down in disappointment.
Anyway, just becuase Michigan has such a system doesn’t prove it can be (or should be) scaled up to cover the entire United States.
New York’s State Constitution calls for the question to be placed before the electorate once every twenty years of whether a Constitutional Convention shall be called. An affirmative vote requires that one be called, which may either write a replacement State Constitution or propose amendments to the existing one. IIRC, the proposition is usually voted down but has resulted in a convention that proposed amendments once in living memory.
A similar national proposition could easily be conducted. Its results could only be binding if at least 30 state legislatures concurred in a resolution under which a majority of voters favoring the calling of such a convention were construed as constructively expressing the will of the legislature whom they elect that such a convention be called. Under the terms of the Constitution, Congress would then be bound to call such a convention. It is debatable whether it can set limits on what such a convention might do: propose amendments but not rewrite the whole constitution, for example; or delimit rights that may not be abridged by new amendments. Any amendments resulting would then have to be ratified by whichever mode Congress deems appropriate. However, the precedent of the Constitutional Convention would indicate that such a body, once legally convened, may make its own decisions about what it will do or not do, and is not bound by whatever terms Congress chooses to set.
Article V seems to already allow what Polycarp is saying could happen:
I see no reason that the Constitutional Convention couldn’t re-write the entire Constitution if it so chose. There’s no difference between re-writing it and amending it to say whatever you want. But talk about getting bogged down in a political process! We can’t even agree on a budget most years, how the hell could we agree on a new constitution?
The U.S. Constitution is the best thing going. Nothing else comes close. But there is at least two things to do if you object to it.
One: Get your elected official to introduce an amendment, the approval of which goes like this:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
Two: Find some other populated country to migrate to, preferably one in which the constitution can be changed on a whim…
Come to think on it, our Congress, by passing it, the President, by signing it, and Supreme Court, by upholding it, did that recently with the part about “Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.” It seems everyone shirked their duty and was counting on the “activist” courts to do the right thing
So, there are, in effect, three things you can do. The third being, approve activist judges to the courts and hold up constitutionalist judges in the Senate.
That wasn’t hard, was it?:wally
Bryan Ekers Thank you very much. I looked through the Michigan constitution, but did not find that language. Polycarp, and John Mace Thanks as well for those analysis. Does anyone know how many state constitutions allow referendums? How many of them allow constitutional ammendments by refferendum?
The Arizona constitution allows the people to ammend it directly. After a percentage (15) put an ammendment on the ballot, a majority can ratify it. It also limits the use of conventions in an interesting way.
So, any convention would have to have its terms agreed to in advance. Supposedly, this could allow us to call a convention which would only be empowered to alter some parts of the constitution. Although, in practice, it would probably be focussed on how to elect conventioners and how to ratify what they come up with.
If I recall my Arizona history correctly, our first draft constituion was denied by Congress because of the referendum clauses in it. We submitted it without those clauses, and when it was approved, quickly ammended it to add them back in.
To my mind, all of this proves that the American Constituion is quite responsive to the people. We could force an amendment over the objections of Copngress if necessary. We could force them to call a new convention if we wanted. The fact that we have not, is in and of itself a vote on the constitution.