The Case for a Constitutional Convention

For 222 years, the United States Constitution has served America well, provided safeguards that(some would say)have protected our institutions, and has been a promising example to up-and-coming nations. Because of these and many other reasons, our constitution has taken on an almost infallible position in many Americans' minds, despite the fact that they despise many individual elements such as the Electoral college and income tax. Generally, the accepted wisdom you often hear is something along the lines of: The Founding Fathers, in all their unending brilliance created a document so unique, so perfect, that America has never witnessed tyranny on the scale of George III ever again. Such a reading of the U.S. constitution distracts from its actual history, some of its concepts, and its shortcomings. The constitution, lest we forget, is essentially a political document. It was forged in a political process, meaning that it was the result of bargains and trades, and many many many things were kicked down the road in the name of convenience (slavery, suffrage, states' rights, etc.) Additionally, the only two avenues for revisions are the amendment process, and the Supreme Court. This made a lot of sense to the Framers, who believed that a government more gridlocked, the better. Given the context in which it was created, I don't blame them. At the time of our Founding, there was no truly free market society in the world, "The Wealth of Nations" was merely 10 years old, and the industrial revolution was yet to come. Without these issues, the problem facing the Founders was ensuring personal freedom against a backdrop of power hungry world leaders.
With the industrial revolution came added problems. We became a nation of laborers and employers, not yeoman farmers and potential kings. While I wholeheartedly believe capitalism is the greatest creator of prosperity and guarantor of personal liberty in the history of the world, it nonetheless always fails to help everybody, and certainly destroys a great deal, especially the freedoms of many Americans. Because of this, unchecked capitalism has created a tyranny of its own and the late nineteenth century is just one of many proofs for this. Almost every other constitution in the world has taken the effects of the Industrial Revolution into account, and I dare say that had Hamilton and Madison lived in the 1890's, they would have too.
Now before Constitutional scholars get their panties in a wad, let's make clear I am not calling for a wholesale rewriting of the constitution. Far from it. Several principles, especially the unitary executive of the Presidency, the tension between states and the Federal Government, and checks and balances are brilliant and would imperil America if they were ignored. What America sorely needs is a streamlined legislature and a constitutional framework that takes capitalism into account. All the changes could be amendments. What I am calling for is a convention (which many states engage in regularly) with all states represented, that can fast track amendments. What should these amendments be, you ask? Below is a list of my personal favorites, many of which I would like to point out are extremely conservative, and extremely liberal. The problems facing the country are beyond the labels of conservative or liberal.

1. A NATIONAL SALES TAX- A national sales tax that would completely replace all Federal income, capital gains, and other taxes. While the tax rate would have to be high (over 30%) many economists agree that doing away with corporate and income taxes would actually lower the cost of goods. The tax would also most likely require a monthly refund for those under the poverty level to make up for the regressive impact of sales taxes.

2. A "RECESSION REACTOR"- A constitutional amendment that would require the slashing of taxes and increases in social welfare spending in the event of a recession (2 or more fiscal quarters of negative growth), levels which would be required to be restored upon positive growth.

3. THE REPEAL OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE- Presidents would be elected by the popular vote.

4. CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS- 2 terms in the Senate, 6 in the House.

5. PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY- The government would continue to deduct from paychecks, but it would go into a "government IRA" which would create a diversified portfolio for all Americans. This would flood the market with new investors, while greatly reducing the government's contribution and allowing it to create a decent pension for those who can't contribute to the government IRA.

6. NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE- Either single payer or a public option to increase access and bring down costs.

7. A STREAMLINED CONGRESS- Substantive changes to both the constitutional sections on congress, and the Senate rules (which are not in the Constitution) to bring it closer to a parliamentary system.

That Acrimonious Stench in the Air? Echoes of the 1850's Senate

Last week, senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) took to the floor of the Senate to object to a unanimous vote on unemployment benefits. His filibuster elicited a vociferous response from Democrats who turned the occasion into a tag team match, venting their frustration with Republican obstructionism in congress. The debate, and the media attention it spawned, led senate Democrats such as Dick Durbin (D-IL) to describe the event as cathartic, and a convenient moment which played into their hands beautifully. While I support public criticism of petty Republican tactics, the increasingly coarse debate within the Senate should give one pause. The senate was intended from the beginning to be an introspective body, free from biannual campaigning, which would balance against the livelier debate seen in the larger and more rambunctious House of Representatives. Due to this, I believe the Senate is the "canary in the mine," an indicator of the civility of debate in America.

Bunning's stunt has inspired many Democrats to use this as a model for further confrontation, even if it leads to obscenities and middle fingers, as this last debate did. In 1856, a similarly tense Senate provided its own sideshow. In 1856, Preston Brooks (D-SC)clobbered senator Charles Sumner (R-MA)over the head with a cane on the senate floor in retaliation for his public condemnation of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, one of the causes of the Civil War. The degradation of senate debate isn't the only reminder of those turbulent '50s. Political leaders from Texas, Alaska, and Vermont have called for secession, while leaders in Arizona and Glenn Beck have "educated" Fox News viewers on the states' right to nullify Federal Law. We haven't heard that one since Andrew Jackson's showdown with John C. Calhoun! The 19th century is back! Furthermore, the Southern Poverty Law Center recently revealed that anti-government militias have increased significantly since Obama's inauguration. This is not to say that we are months from the Battle of Bull Run, but it is indicative of a serious ignorance of history in today's society.

For decades, schools have stocked history classrooms with gym teachers and football coaches, while putting more emphasis on reading and math (how else will they pass those standardized tests?!). Students are drilled on names and dates, facts which bore them and frequently lead to hatred of the subject. As more and more students hate history, they deprive themselves of valuable context which would otherwise help them determine the validity of an argument. In a country where we turn to the Drudge report and the empty-headed anchors of CNN for our news, this lack of context is quite dangerous. The Michelle Bachmanns and Noam Chomskys of the world argue ahistorically for their side, finding adherents amongst the very same students who "hate history." Hopefully one day we'll learn to treat American History with more respect, because if we don't, we'll see brother fighting brother sooner than you expect.