We all know how Americans revere the Constitution, so I was struck by the news that tiny, little Iceland is actually junking its own Constitution and starting anew using an unusual - some would say innovative - mechanism.
The nation decided it needed a new Constitution and it's soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This social media method has worked. Ideas have been flowing in. Many have asked for guaranteed, good health care. Others want campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal. And some just want the country to make shark finning illegal.
There is a Constitutional Council. It incorporates some of these ideas, rejects others, but everything is done in plain sight on the web. As one member of the Constitutional Council said, the document is basically being drafted on the Internet.
Now, why do they need a new Constitution anyway? Well, after Iceland was crippled in recent years by the economic crisis, they all wanted a fresh start. And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.
You might be tempted to say that Iceland doesn't have any reasons to be proud of its political traditions in the manner that the United States does. Well, think again.
Iceland is home to the world's oldest parliament still in existence, the Althing, set up in 930 A.D. The rocky ledge on which they gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world. So Iceland has reasons to cherish its history, and yet it was willing to revise it.
By contrast, any talk of revising or revisiting the U.S. Constitution is, of course, seen as heresy. The United States Constitution was, as you know, drafted in a cramped room in Philadelphia in 1787 with shades drawn over the windows. It was signed by 39 people.
America at the time consisted of 13 states. Congress had 26 senators and 65 representatives. The entire population was about one percent of today's number - four million people.
America was an agricultural society, with no industry - not even cotton gins. The flush toilet had just been invented.
These were the circumstances under which this document was written.
Let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary work - one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history.
One amazing testament to it is the mere fact that it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years.
But our Constitution has been revised 27 times. Some of these revisions have been enormous and important, such as the abolition of slavery. Then there are areas that have evolved. For example, the power of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is barely mentioned in the document. This grew as a fact over history.
But there are surely some issues that still need to be debated and fixed.
The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent.
The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.
And we are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system.
So we could use the ideas of social media that were actually invented in this country to suggest a set of amendments to modernize the Constitution for the 21st Century.
Such a plan is not unheard of in American history.
After all, the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 initially meant not to create the Constitution as we now know it, but instead to revise the existing document, the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates saw a disconnect between the document that currently governed them and the needs of the nation, so their solution was to start anew.
I'm just suggesting we talk about a few revisions.
Anyway, what do you think? Should we do this? And if we were to revise the U.S. Constitution, what would be the three amendments you would put in?
Let us know in the comment thread and we'll post the best ones on the Global Public Square.
 |
Post by: |
While the electoral college suggestions are not without merit, your suggestion about the Senate shows your total lack of understanding of how (and why) the Senate exists. Please do some research before you display your ignorance.
The House of Representatives is the portion of Congress which represents (to a degree) the "one-man-one-vote" idea. The number of Representatives are based on population numbers. A small state, like Rhode Island, doesn't have as much representation (and thus, as much power) as a more populous state. There is no way a smaller state could block any legislation of larger states. The Senate is designed specifically to prevent such "mob rule". Each state, no matter the size, must come to accords on equal footing. Therefore, a minority of populous states cannot push legislation which is detrimental to smaller states. So you need to do some more research. I (personally) think you should retract your comments and publish your new understanding of the Constitution.
The Electoral College is structured the way it is for the exact same reasons the Senate and House are balanced the way they are. Many people seem to forget we're a Union of States, not just a federal government.
The presidential election system we have today is NOT in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would NOT need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
I think you are completely mistaken on electoral colleges... they had nothing to do with balance or any such thing. They were created due to the practical limitations of the society and technology of the time.
We are talking before cars or phone or radio or internet. In essence it worked like this... After all the votes had been counted and the general consensus of the state / county was determined you then needed a trustworthy person whom could then carry the results of the election and by proxy the general consensus BY HORSE.. to a central location where all the popular votes of all the states could be gathered and tabulated.
If the internet or phones or even jet planes existed back then they would not need this electoral college member to go and represent the people they would just transmit the actual numbers.
@OldGulph:
"Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states."
Wrong – in a pure popular vote system, the Midwest would be completely ignored. Politicians would focus on the east and west coasts and perhaps Texas – the most populous states. They would visit the areas where they could speak to as many people as possible at once first and foremost. Most small states wouldn't even be addressed. Spending time and money in Wisconsin wouldn't be as effective as spending the same time and money in California. Rural needs would be ignored, due to a smaller number of people. Fine if you live in an urban area, not so much if you live in a rural area. (there are benefits of living in a rural area – low/no crime, for one. Urbanites just can't get along...)
Instead of a winner takes all in each state the electoral vote should be based on percentages, simply put, State A has 10 electoral votes, 70 percent voted for Candidate A, 30 percent for Candidate B. Candidate A gets 7 Votes, Candidate B gets 3 votes. This way everyone would feel like their vote mattered. Myself, living in a state that a democrat wins every time, do not feel that my vote matters and that is a travesty
I think Zakaria was just asking us to think about it rather than as a serious proposal. What if we would re write our constitution how would it be different from the one we have. think about this
1 Keep the bill of rights and/or change them so that everyone has equal protection under the law
2 Get rid of representitive government altogether
3 Using current technology every voter would be given the chance to vote on new laws.
4 Laws and ammendments could be recommended but in order to et them to a vote there would have to be some sort of process which a certain percentage of voters would have to agree that its good enough to vote on. The supreme court or some other body would have to review the law in question before it came to a vote. The bill would have to be in language that everyone could understand, not lawyereze. Have experts come in to answer questions about how proposed bill would expect to change things. Then let the public decide.
5. This would reduce corruption because there would be so many people voting you couldnt bribe all of them. It would eliminate earmarks and pet projects because the bill would have to stand up to national oversite. You would have fewer tax breaks and special concerns for select buisnesses as well. There would be less horse trading to get bills signed into law.
6. You could keep the executive branches and judicial branches the same to keep the checks and balances.
Problems with this:
Would enough people vote to make it worthwhile?
Would enough people be willing to educate themselves on a subject before voting?
How would you make it so that it does not just become a tyranny of the majority?
What would rules for advertising for or against a bill be set up?
Can you set up a voting system secure enough that a smart hacker could not change the number of yes or no votes?
This is just an idea...I think Mr Zakaria was wanting our opinion on how we would change things if we could.
I would very much agree with Chase. The United STATES of America is the name. You will NEVER get the smaller states to agree to give up their statehood. So, lets go ahead and talk about work togethering than changing the balanced power we have working now.
oldgulph is absolutely wrong. The Constitution does indeed direct that, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (Article II, section 1,paragraph 2)" Amendment 12 covers the rest of the details for how these electors shall select a president.
Slow down on all the babble and actually read the Constitution. BTW...the Federalist Papers are not the law of the land.
"Many people seem to forget we're a Union of States, not just a federal government."
Maybe it's time we did something about that.
Instead what happens is that as soon as a candidate knows he won't win a state, it becomes ignored, because it is an all or nothing proposition. California – the most populous state – gets completely ignored, because it isn't seen as winnable by Republicans. Marginalizing the most populated areas isn't particularly democratic, either.
Truth known, the founding didn't want a federal nation. Thus the word, Republic, a rather vague description for the collection of states.
The Articles of Confederation worked out so well for the founders, didn't they?
I think, for presidential elections, we need to get rid of the electoral college. True, it does mean that candidates probably will not have many campaign stops in Wyoming...
I think we could also do away with the 2nd amendment. I think we would be much better off if we tried to put that genie back in the bottle.
"Rick House" and ":Chase" are typcial teabaggers. they seem to think the electoral college is in the constitution, They treat the constitution as a sacred text while incorrectly asserting a certain "wisdom" is in fact in that constitution. Much like Michelle Bachman who thrice now has asserted that constitutional law not verbatim n the constitution is in it. They don't realize they are in fact defending constructional law promulgated from the bench!
the electoral college was put in place because the founder felt that the average citizen was not smart enough to vote for leaders. Seriously folks, this is history. What has happened is the the candidates spend a huge amount of time and money in the larger states. When was the last time you saw candidates flocking to New Mexico to campaign. I also think that person status should be stripped from corporations. I know I am going to hear from the trolls and the suck ups on that one.
Senate also exists to hedge against the tyranny of the majority. That's also why its seats don't all come up for election at once. Crazy ideological swings in two of the three branches of government would not be good, and the senate, presidency, and courts buffer against that by longer and staggered terms.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, can be found by examining the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. It is certainly true that the biggest cities in those states typically vote Democratic. However, the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted Republican. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
Under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
I say if more people vote for person # 1 than person # 2 for president then person # 1 should be president or what is the use of even voting.It is pretend democracy the way things are now plain and simple.People who want to smoke marijuana should have the right to under the protection of the pursuit of happiness given by the Constitution.
FIX these two things while were at it please.
Respectfully : Aacon
Precisely. Would those who lose site of this suggest that members of the United Nations have ambassadors, and therefore votes, numbereed based on population?
Interesting discussion.
I'm inclined to cut Fareed some slack here and not go too ballistic at his overt references to the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College as "undemocratic". If the US was a pure democracy rather than a republic, perhaps those institutions might be termed un-(perfectly)democratic, but fifth graders know we are a republic not a pure democracy, and also that we are the greatest democracy in the history of the world. You don't have to be a perfect democracy to be the greatest democracy. The U.S. Constitution, the document that binds our nation together, was a painstakingly constructed document resulting from many compromises that diverge from the tenets of perfect democracy.
So let's take Fareed's article at face value as simply a call for discussions to consider the necessity of a constitutional update.
I for one do not think any major update is needed, but I would tell Fareed that sufficient tools and methods are contained in the basic document and can be used whenever sufficient political will arises. Article V of the Constitution allows both for ordinary amendments (27 so far since 1789), and also for Constitutional Conventions should the need arise.
Regarding Fareed's remark about the "undemocratic" Senate, I would mention that Article V establishes only one limiting caveat to the amendment process, namely that "No state without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". So, bad luck Fareed, anything altering the EQUAL representation of states in the Senate is off limits in the amendment process unless the affected states go along.
I would also like to comment about the Electoral College and the current move to modify it by an interstate compact as advocated by the group National Popular Vote (NPV). I admit I'm a fan of the Electoral College as a means of leveling the electoral playing field, somewhat, between large and small states, and I think that was the basic intent of the framers.
Even though I personally like the Electoral College, I would support its modification or elimination by constitutional amendment, if the amendment process in Article V was followed. The NPV-backed compact seems to me to be a sneaky way to amend the constitution while not following the Article V procedure.
But honestly, I don't think the popular vote interstate compact will ever fly.
Even though it has approval in 29% of the needed states now, that's a long way from 50 percent given the volatility of state legislatures and governorships. Even if it was to be approved in sufficient states, the whole thing would likely blow up at election time because there is no guard against states backing out whenever they want. Say what you will about the Electoral College system, it's a stable system that has worked reasonably well since 1789. Modifying the Electoral College through this interstate compact would make the process of electing our president subject to the fickle political winds blowing in fifty state capitals and might create an electoral disaster that would make Bush v. Gore look like a walk in the park. Spare me, please!
Another problem facing the NPV proposal is Article I, Section 10 of the constitution, which requires congressional consent for states entering into interstate compacts. With regard to that point, the NPV website goes through a lot of mind-numbing legalistic mumbo jumbo, but at the end, acknowledges that to avoid messy and lengthy litigation, it is "working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent".
My prediction about the likelihood of the interstate compact being passed by Congress? Quoting the Clint Eastwood line from "In the Line of Fire": "That's not gonna happen".
I know, let's abolish the House of Representatives...then each state will have an equal voice...oh but wait...the founding fathers already thought of that scenario didn't they?
Exactly. How can CNN even publish an article by someone who clearly does not understand the US constitution. Shame on CNN for not researching before publishing this joke of an article.
Wait – did you even read the article? He was voicing concern about the Senate, not the House, because of the lopsided representation of states in that "august" body. The House represents a closer realization of "one person, one vote." Nebraska has a unicameral that seems to work just fine, without the need for a senate chamber.
And SueUS: This article was anything but a joke, but apparently you and TooClose2DC have comprehension issues. You might try an actual education before mouthing off on something that is clearly NOT the intent of the author. (By the way, I would venture to wager that Zackaria has a greater understanding of the Consti-tution and consti-tutional law than either of you.)
TO Sir Craig: You forget why Senate was design this way, following your logic and only House's little states will be trampled (whatever the word is) by larger states, which clearly not desirable.
Keep it simple folks. All the little states should merge first of all. The south goes to the mexican people. The rockies go to the skin heads and the deep south becomes black states. Walls and fences betrween all the states. White minoroity gets wjhats left over. Then we invade Canada. No more constitution needed at all. We all get guns and have abortions.
True. The Great Compromise right? In the Senate the least populous state still has a significant say on laws being passed. This makes this body frustratingly slow and inefficient, but that is the cost of our Democracy. Still brilliant after 200+ years.
There is a simple fix to what is suggested here. The Senate is the problem. We need to limit the term of Sentors to the same term as the President. The six year term is just asking for the problems we have with the Senate – the "good ol boys network".
First the legislative branch was split in two for a reason. The House is made up of roughly equal votes per rep. This allows each person an equal say in government. Next is the Senate which gives each state an equal voice. If we restructure the Senate to be representative of people and not states would duplicate the House. Secondly states like New York and California would make laws for all states. California already has issues between southern and northern California in their state government and how one doesn't understand the other's issues. How would Ohio, Iowa, and Nebraska feel about laws made for big cities and coastal states? The House and Senate are fine the way they are. What America needs is to go back to what the document says not what we think or want it to say. The President was never meant to have as much power as the current President wields. The Judicial branch was meant to rule on whether laws being created in the Legislation are Constitutional, not class action suits for environmental issues. The power of the US government was to remain with the states and not federal levels. Our documents are fine, may need clarification when terms such as all men are created equal if the people feel it doesn't mean mankind (humans) but means males. I feel rewriting it or writing a new one is not needed and would ruin the very fact that this nation is a model for the world to follow and emulate. And who would have the last say in what it says? Our current President is in contempt of the war law by not getting approval for Libya and he thinks he and his advisors are right and everyone else is wrong.
Amen! This is typical progressive bull that they pull when they are trying to get a leg up on someone else. The only thing broken is their perspective! Fix that and leave our great system alone!
we are NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC!!!!
@ John
The reason that US senators serve for 6 years is to provide more of an incentive to focus on long-term issues rather than simply being concerned with re-election
@ JJ
Exactly. The US is not and was never intended to be a pure democracy. Federalist 10 provides a good explanation for why this is the case
Mississippi Steve – I was really impressed with your knowledge of the three houses, the manner in which you explained their authority and your overall comment... until I got to the last sentence. For a person with the level of understanding it took to break down the pillars of our government so succinctly, surely you recognize that the violation to the War Powers Act you are sighting has neither been substantiated, nor is as cut and dried as you are presenting it. To the letter of the requirements of that treaty, taking into account the actual level of support the US is providing in the NATO effort, the argument of whether congressional approval is required is just. Further, the GOP is politicizing this to the hilt as a violation of congressional procedure with little or no concern for the people of Libya it has saved.
The constitution never intended for a president to have the power that they now have, the war powers act is unconstitutional as is executive privledge. The congress abdicated their right to declare war with the act and as Obama took us to war in Libya because Gaddfai was "threatening our values" there is no doubt that it is illegal, in no way is a threat to our vaules an actual threat to our country. You may approve of the war on humanitarian reasons but attacking a sovergn nation for no reason is unconstitutional and also another huge waste of our precioius tax dollars.
Mississippi Steve,
The Constitution does not mention that the Judicial branch has the power to determine if legislation is constitutional or not. You might want to read the US Supreme Court case of Marbury vs. Madison. Of course, there is always a possibility that you might not understand it either.
Floydgg you are wrong and Mississippi Steve is right
No where in the Constitution does it give the the SCOTUS the right to review legislative law to see if they are constitutional. Read the entire document you will not find it. The judicial review precedent was founded in Marbury v. Madison however if you read the opinion of the court they find no Constitutional reason for being able to review the case.
This is a democratic republic, not a democracy. The author of this piece seems to be unaware of this fact and it's a shame that he is so ill-informed.
The original document was designed for the specific purpose of limiting the abusive power of a centralized, federal government, something that the founding fathers had first hand knowledge of. The closer the power resides to the individual, the better. However, now that the federal government is unlimited in it's power, size and has no accountability to it's citizens, perhaps an Article V convention is in order to add a few amendments, to return power to the states and put real limitations on the federal behemoth (term limits, balanced budget, flat/fair tax, spending limitation based on GDP, pork removal, protecting borders, staying out of state business, etc.)?
Besides, imagine the turmoil (as demonstrated by 2000) if the popular vote were close. In 1960, Kennedy and Nixon were separated by less than a 1/4 million votes (0.3% difference), but the balance of states allowed Kennedy to have nearly 100 more EC votes than Nixon. What would be the limiter on whether a candidate could demand a recount?
@RickHouse Thank you for a 3rd grader's definition of how Congress works. Obviously the author is aware of everything you stated. The question he is posing here, is whether or not it is the best system. Why should a tiny group in Rhode Island have the same influence as a massive group in California. Is a Rhode Islander's vote worth more? In today's system it is.
ABC – the reason is that most other less populous states do not want socialist-leaning states such as the People's Republik of Kalifornia wielding more influence and thus bullying the other states into what CA wants.
We need to the balance of power... just because populus states like California can't get anything right.
It didn't sound to me as if Mr. Zakaria had any clue of the purpose of the 100-member Senate. We get a proportional representation in the House, and equal representation in the Senate, a fairly brilliant setup that helps balance the power states have in congress and give them all a voice. Why have a bicameral congress if each house is the same as the other?
Two nice things about the Constitution I should mention: one, it is designed to be amendable; it can change. And it has. Two, it is difficult to change, also a good thing. Certainly, asking the general population what a Constitution should be like sounds like a piss-poor idea, especially given the terrible suggestions given on Facebook by Icelanders. Guaranteed health care? Campaign finance laws?? Making shark finning illegal??? Constitutions should be enumerating the powers and roles of the government and guaranteeing the people certain freedoms and rights, rights to action. All the above suggestions are limiting the people's freedom and increasing the government's power. But then again, it's amazing what people will give up, without a fight–in fact, eagerly, for some sense of pseudo-security in return. It's happening here.
It's like that so morons in one state don't control everything. Moron.
Because each State is a member of the "Union" having equal power. Lager populations get more house seats while each State gets two Senators. The Senate is supposed to represent the State government in Federal matters. The current Senate elections are a perversion to a proper check and balance system.
California's vote is certainly not worth more than mine! To hell with anyone who thinks that an illegal vote is worth more than the generations of hard work and sacrifice that my family has put in!
Yes, the 17th ammendment really screwed up the system. By having senators be elected by popular vote, a vote in a small state can be worth more than in a big state. The senate used to be appointed by the state governments to go on behalf of the state (not the people, that was the job of the House). That way the people had equal representation, and voting weight, and each state had an equal voting weight as well. This is no longer the case. Now the house and senate are the same thing, but with distorted weights.
@sassy – what? How are Californian votes illegal?
ABC... Remember the constitution was about balancing powers that is why I believe the Senate was formed. I think this author made some mistakes in suggesting we totally start a new. The founding fathers were smart in that they knew the document would need to be changed from time to time. Here is an amendment and my dream list would be. Amendment one stipulate and remove lawyers from office. This country is a republic and if they would just enforce the rules they already have things would work out. However, the supreme court is corrupt in my opinion and they should serve a limited term. Especially after hearing about their Wal-Mart decision today. I think I will need to read more about what was really decided. There are big problems in the Judiciary. One thing I would remove is no more pardons by the president if someone in his office did something bad like committing treason.
Rob- it is UTTERLY HILARIOUS that you say that about California. How long was it run by a republican governor, btw? Hrm. Funny how that works.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, we're a democratic republic. We're not a true democracy. Shocking, right? /eyeroll
@ Rob – regarding your exceedingly immature comment: grow up, for your own good and most definitely ours.
sassypants; and fortunately for us the founding fathers based our constitution on a system of equality and not what you are sighting as precedence!
@Seraphim0 – what does the past Governance of CA have to do with how it is now ran? CA is basically one big cesspool of socialist ideals catering to illegals.
CA has twice the population of New York but 5 times as many welfare cases. In 2009, CA tied with Louisiana for the lowest credit rating among the states, and is ranked 48th as the least business friendly state. The average native-born Californian pays nearly $1500/year to subsidize the education, health care, and incarceration of illegal aliens. Illegals are allowed to pay in-state tuition while a US citizen who happens to live in a state other than CA must pay out-of-state tuition.
I could go on, but even someone like you should get the point.
@PeterG – immature maybe, however it's factual. More populous states would bully less populous ones and thus would wield more power.
Sadly none of this makes any difference since it is the lobbyist and special interest groups that get their way, not the people of the individual states.
@abc
If he had a third-grader's understanding, I would not have felt compelled to explain it to him. What he (and possibly you) missed is that there is a sound REASON to have this system of balances. The Senate has NOTHING to do with an individual's voting power. It has EVERYTHING to do with a sovereign state's power. Even third graders understand that.
@Joe Amen, brother. The Constitution is not a law-book. It is the system in which laws are created. More people need to understand this.
Mr House, Your otherwise appropriate response to Mr Zakaria's column would have been much more effective without the following sentence: "Please do some research before you display your ignorance." With all due respect, what could have been a simple, measured, thoughtful, and intelligent response is undermined by a rude blast of condescension.
Agreed.. It is so easy to suggest that someone may not master his subjet.. This is not a live debate and Mr zakaria has little options with which to potentially show that Mr Rick House is an ignorant person... works both ways, so courtesy should rule. Mr Sakaria may not be every one's pot of tea, but he does raise intelligent questions.
Sounded good to me, since the article was indeed a bunch of crap.
Civil discourse and effective debater go hand in hand. Insulting the writer says more about the insulter than about the insultee.
Why, It is still a free society, right ? Or does Mr. Zakaria deserve more consideration for his comments than Mr. House ?
Not knowing Mr. Zakaria nor Mr. House personally, i cannot speak to their levels of congnitive discourse.
however, this idea that everyones opinion should have equal weight is utterly assinine. do you take the opinion of a 3 year old that their tummy hurts because of a demon against the opinion of an internal medical doctor who says the kids tummy hurts because of poor dietary habits that have caused an ulcer? or how about the opinion of some people that the world is 6000 years old because that's what a book says, and humans and dinosaurs were friends and played golf, while the entire group of people who have studied the creation of the world and the universe have the opinion that the world is 6 billion years old, and the universe is close to 14billion? should those two groups opinions be weighted equally?
Since when is pointing out someone's ignorance (lack of knowledge) on a subject an inflammatory statement? This is yet another example of the age of political correctness gone awry. Changing a words meaning to fit a corrupted education on the value of a word to a derogatory stance has become a more common practice for the last 20 years or so. Mr. House wasn't saying that Mr. Zakaria was anything other than missing some of the facts. And as others have stated previously, Mr. House input in JUST as important as any others. It was intelligent and directorial in contrast to many other comments that will not take notice.
Concerning the subject at hand, the obvious answer is absolutely not. The document will never need to be rewritten to adapt to the change in times. Amended probably, but abolished completely to start a new is, as Mr. Zakaria pointed out, heresy. Is it perfect for every situation, absolutely. In it's entirety no, in its function and ability to be amended should the need arise, yes. Besides it was never meant to be all encompassing because the founding fathers designed it not to be as they didn't want an all encompassing government that would be created upon the foundation of such document to be so absolute.
Yes, his right to input is just as important as anyone else's, but not the input itself.
He's been heard. But that doesn't mean we all should agree with him, or place value on his rude comments.
The reason he was wrong to say that about Zakaria is because it most certainly did not help his argument. Respect your enemy and you have a greater chance of winning your argument. Bash your enemy and it will just further divide by causing them to stand their ground.
That said, I agree with whoever said that Iceland is making a mistake. The mob most definitely needs to be kept as far away from power as possible. Time and again we, as a people, have proven our inability to properly treat each other, respect each other and leave each other the hell alone. No thanks. We need to take more power away from the people and put it into the hands of a select few. Fewer than we have now in D.C.
How about we reduce the size of Congress and the Executive branch?
@Mitch Owens,
Perhaps I chose my words poorly. But "ignorance" is the state of not knowing. It is evident that the author did not know the purpose of the Senate. I could have been kinder, but that would obfuscate the meaning. I hope Mr. Zakaria knows the meaning of words, as should you.
@Steve, I fail to see the term as insulting. Had I said he was "stupid", I would agree I crossed the line. See my response, above, regarding terminology.
@Bryan Thank you.
Rick House You seem like a no it all with your dismissive attitude! Can Fareed not have an opinion without you calling him an idiot!
Some of the posts here seem very intelligent and well thought out. Others just seem to be rants by people who have never taken the first class on U.S. History, or a Political Science class in college on the Constitution or the Congress. These same people seem to be the primary ones (not the only ones) shouting insults to the author of this article and to other posters. Why not at least be civil to each other and consider the fact that some people may actually have been educated on the subject. I recommend reading "The Living Constitution by by David A. Strauss, The United States Constitution: Annotated with The Federalist Papers In Modern English by Mary E. Webster, and Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process by Walter J. Oleszek (8th Edition). You'd be surprised what you might learn. To those who actually know what they're talking about and refrain from hurling insults at others, kudos!
I couldn't agree more. If you don't understand that part of the constitution and how the Legislative branch is set up, then you should not be suggesting the constitution be re-written. If it were re-written it would be a piece of junk that would destroy our country. The constitution is the core values of what this country was founded and it is still revellant today!
I agree
Sir,
I do not believe that Zakaria is suggesting that the Constiution be rewritten, but rather amended. He does not say it should have a direct connection with facebook or twitter that would establish immediate ammendments as the population suggests it. He merely intended to spark some sort of conversation regarding amendments; what should be added or amended? There are several parts of the Constitution or our laws in general that would require an Amendment to be effective. An amendment establishing a national electoral system for presidential elections would ensure we do not have issues like the 2000 election.
I encourage readers to understand that Zakaria most likely did not intend to suggest that the Senate was undemocratic, but rather ironic in its set up. Furthermore, term limits are inherently undemocratic as they seek too restrict the amount of time an elected official is in office (presidential term limits weren't established until after WWII and FDR).
It is relevant, but what is being suggested is that it be updated to contend with the times. You probably arent using a computer right now that is 5 years old, your car probably isnt from the 30s, why would you think that something from the late 1700s would still be pertinent?
Yes, much of what was written is incredibly insightful even today, but some of what was in there, and some of what has been changed makes no sense by today's standards.
A piece of junk? Possibly. But I find it to be an interesting thought experiment to ask what our Constitution would look like if it were being written today.
Some is relevant today but it certainly could do with major changes that reflect society TODAy not in our grandparents' day
thought and hoped you were extinct with the rest of the dinosaurs, you will be soon
Rick, your comment actually brought up a broader question. Why should we use states, at all, when we are determining national elections? How about dividing the country up into 100 regions that are the exact same size in terms of land area. Each region gets 1 rep in the "Senate", and a proportion of reps based on population in the "House". Why should the land claims of European explorers in the 16th and 17th centuries influence the voting districts we use today?
I like the idea of population and region determining the two houses, but not when geography is based on historic boundaries that don't mean anything today.
Because we are a collection of states where the states are supposed to hold most of the power and give the federal government very little power beyond international commerce and treaty negotiations. Much like the EU is a joining of nations where each member nation still has the power to govern itself.
Your suggestion goes against the very principals the nation was founded on and would require not only a complete re-write of the constitution, but also that we abolish each states government and boundaries. It would be a huge upheaval, and probably would touch off a civil war.
Well if you are going to do that, why have a Senate at all?
Most of the state borders aren't just arbitrary lines drawn up by European explorers. Most are based around geographical features such as rivers and mountains.
This is the most interesting concept presented in this thread. I would have found the article more fascinating had there been thought provoking ideas. However, your idea is worth exploring even if only for intellectual exercise. Always shocks me to see the content of our "media" outlets. Ahhhh, I miss the good old days when CNN reported the news and left the sillyness to talk shows..
The constitution and the American republic work well now. The system of amendments allows for change. Often people calling for change are just predators waiting to swoop in and promote some judgmental agenda.
I don't think we need a new Constitution as much as we need to either A) divide the country in half and the Conservatives can live in one half while the Liberals can live in another, or B) have an all-out civil war until one side is completely obliterated.
The country can't go on divided as it is. I have living under the rule of a government with values (such as constant "war" and police state mentality that I abhor).
WHat many people fail to realize is that our split country of liberals and conservatives is why we have survived this whole time. Never in the history of the world has a one-party system worked. ex: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Apartheid South Africa... Our split provides balance that changes every 4-8 years
Don't think Liberal and Conservative have much to do with constant "war" that you abhor so much. Just look at our current president who was deemed the most liberal but now is basically shunning the War Powers Act to continue war without the consent (or even informing) of Congress. Both parties will always go to war.
Revising electoral college is a good idea. It is archaic piece that goes back 222 years. Congressman term and Senate terms should also be limited. They limited the President cause Franklin Roosevelt was elected 4 terms. Someone didn't like that. Well we should also limit the terms of the Congress so we can get new blood flowing from time to time. Besides Congress approved the amendment. But it's another issue when you are the target. The President was one thing Congress is not so fast on the trigger of changing a good thing. They will fight tooth and claw to stop that change. as a good idea, it is so that they have limits. But reality gets in the way. Why rock the boat.
Agreed. The only change I see that needs to be made is term limits in Congress. Our founding fathers did not intend for our elected representatives to be career politicians. THIS BREEDS CORRUPTION!!! Our founding fathers served our country and then returned to their private lives.
Unless my knowledge of it's history has been permanently distorted by years, wasn't the electoral collage devised as a means to obtain election results quicker due to geographic complications of all the precincts which needed to be tallied?Not lined by telegraph, telephone or any other reliable means of quick execution, the electoral collage was a means to come to a count in timely means through representation. An obviously outdated system which now serves little purpose over a means to bypass the will of the voting public
It was the Republicans who despised FDR and wanted to ensure that no other popular president could keep getting reelected time after time. Ironically, it was Republicans who agitated to repeal this amendment so that poplular president Ronald Reagan could be reelected without limit! Fortunately, that didn't go anywhere, but does prove that Republicans in general are brain-dead.
@KawiMan
Rational people support term limits because they see career politicians working for their financial supporters and only worrying around getting reelected. The corruption is readily apparent to anyone who cares to look (whether or not they agree with their Congresscritter's voting record). The contrary argument is that experienced people are lost, but with continuity of staff and institutions, I can't see that some fresh blood at intervals wouldn't help. Are there really so few capable people out there that we'll quickly run out of good ones? I don't think so.
@Peter G
Uh, what's the difference between carrying a piece of paper that says "George Washington: 18237 votes, John Adams: 12,298 votes", and one that says "George Washington: 5 electoral votes, John Adams: 2 electoral votes"? I can't believe one piece of paper would be that much heavier than the other! The purpose of the Electoral system, as much as anything, is to reduce the influence of the common rabble on the outcome. Our Founding Fathers lived in fear of what unfettered democracy could do, and wanted to reduce the power of the Common Man as much as they could, while still giving them the comforting illusion that their voice would be heard (has anything changed?).
Some of the other comments on this page are calling for more direct democracy (national referendum, initiative, etc.). That would be a foolish mistake, and our Founding Fathers knew that. Look what that's done to states like California - they're tied up in knots with all the crazy laws "the people" have passed (Prop 13, anyone?). Part of the reason we have the governmental structure we have is to cool popular passions and let supposedly mature and level headed people in the legislature/Congress reflect on what they're doing and make sober decisions. It doesn't always work that way, but it's better than would could be.
Lets also not forget that the senate was originally not supposed to be voted on by the people at all. It was designed to be the state's representation in the federal government. The power was divided to protect 3 interests, the people (house), the states (senate), and the federal government (executive branch). Right now foreign nations from all over the world have official representation in Washington, while none of the states in the US do.
The Senate should be reverted back to it's original intent. Senators should not be elected representatives because it does promote "mob" rule by national political party. That power has been forever stripped from the states and was the biggest mistake ever made by the American people (outside of electing Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama).
THE BIGGEST MISTAKE WE MADE IS BY ELECTING GW TWICE. EXCUSE THE SECOND TIME WAS AN ACCIDENT OR A FRAUD
JG – As a democrat and more over, a sane human being i'm not arguing your point in the least! But it was the first time that was a fraud, The second time was a democratic party f/u in the manner in which it managing it's canvasing of Ohio- throw a few celebs to do the skin and grin in key metropolitan areas vs. the more grassroots door-to-door approach adopted by the GOP which included coverage of all key precincts, both metro and rural. The dems gave Ohio away and as the documentary says.. so goes the nation.
@Rick House
The Swiss Parliament took over the American bicameralism in 1848, when the modern Swiss nation was founded. The constitution had ever since then been rewritten a few times. The Swiss upper chamber is the equivalence of the American Senate. Each canton sends two elected to Bern, regardless of the demographic size of it. The Swiss find this system very democratic, as a small canton has the same relevance as a major canton like Zurich or Geneva in the upper chamber.
I find it quite allright that the citizenry in Island update their constitution on line. We in the Nordic countries are known to be flexible and pioneers.Therefore we have the highest quality of life!
Get real... time to thaw out and come to grips with reality.
Statistically speaking, J is correct. The Nordic countries have scored very highly on quality of life indices for several years. The US has been slipping on those same indices for quite a while. Remember, Bob, patriotism means occassionally having to ask what you're doing wrong. Blind faith is not a good thing for political systems.
I think folks here are missing the point. Yes, there is a reason the Senate and House are setup in their respective manners. But, do we really need a Senate to represent the states? And are Senators really the wise statesmen who cool off the radical, temporary passions of those in the House? In other words, is the logic of the founders valid today? Does policy-making occur as The Founders envisioned when they set up the structure of decision-making?
The US Constitution was written by smart men who used historical anecdotes to make their arguments. Countries that run into problems have this type of government, so we need to do something different. That is what their logic comes down to in The Federalist Papers. We know more today about the relationship between institutions, rules and elite behavior than they did 200+ years ago. So, the question is why not make some changes?
Personally, I would like each presidential candidate to propose amendments, but that will never happen. But what changes are needed? I'm not really concerned about the electoral college – it doesn't bother me too much. I rather see an amendment that deprives corporations of personhood status (only way apparently to stop corporate donations) and something about more specific rules for Congress so that important bills don't get buried in committee because party leadership doesn't want to bring it to the floor (in other words, let them vote on it publicly so we know how our legislators really feel about issues rather than just the two or three highly partisan issues that come up).
Your point on bills being tied up or buried is right on target. It would also be good if all spending in a bill was required to be germane to the bill.
I also agree that the electoral college should be looked at. But it is incredibly ignorant to suggest revising representation in the Senate; this is the reason it was created. On top of that, I'm fairly certain if polled a large majority of liberals and conservatives would agree.
However, looking into term limits in Congress is a worthwhile idea. Our Congress was not set up to create career politicians, it was made to allow for a voice of the common people. It is a shame that our country in run not by constantly rotating perspectives but by vote grabbers who make politics a career.
The popular notion that Congress is full of career politicians is a myth. Average length of service for Representatives in the current Congress is 9.8 years (4.9 terms) and 11.4 years (1.9 terms) for Senators.
Several states have implemented term limits, so we don't have to talk about the effects of term limits from a purely theoretical point of view. It is, in my opinion, irresponsible to advocate them for the U.S. Congress without giving any consideration what we've learned about them from the states that have them.
And what have we learned? In a nutshell we've learned they bring about a number of changes. Some are arguably good and some are clearly not good. But at the end of the day it seems to be a wash at best, and some believe a net negative. Both Utah and Idaho repealed their term limits. The Articles of Confederation had term limits and they were rejected when the Constitution was written.
California has term limits, and the worst budget crisis in the country. In fact, some of the most vocal opponents to term limits for Congress are people in California where they don't like what term limits have done there. Arizona, another state with a serious budget crisis, has term limits. Their term-limited legislature produced a birther bill and an immigration bill many believe to be unconstitutional. Florida, another state with a serious budget crisis, has term limits.
Effects of term limits in Maine: more power to the executive branch
http://www.allbusiness(dot)com/public-administration/executive-legislative-other-general/360734-1.html
Effects of term limits in Arizona: irreparable damages
http://www.allbusiness(dot)com/public-administration/executive-legislative-other-general/360727-1.html
Term limits are a copout. Terms are already limited by elections. People advocate term limits because they want government to run well on autopilot. Instead of expecting voters to study issues and vote responsibly to vote bad legislators out of office we'll just purge the entire legislature of all of them — good and bad — every few years. Advocates of term limits are basically saying we can't trust voters to vote responsibly so we'll take away their right to reelect representatives they like more than one or two times.
Term limits make sense for the president and governors because those single individuals wield so much power and influence over policy, but that logic doesn't apply to a member of a legislative body.
I guess it's my conservative nature that compels me to oppose term limits, as I oppose amending the Constitution of the United States unless someone can present a compelling argument the result would be an improvement over what we have now, and no one has presented such an argument.
Instead all I see are people making unsupported claims that term limits would solve this or that problem. These people have great faith in their beliefs in this regard, but they have no evidence to back that belief, and universally they fail to even attempt to address the negative consequences. That's simply not good enough to justify amending the Constitution.
On the other hand, I have never encountered anyone who can offer any reason to believe a better informed electorate would be anything but positive, and yet it's almost impossible to get any support for the idea. Term limits are popular, educating the public is not. Why is that? To me the answer is obvious: Term limits require no effort from the general population.
People want a government that runs on autopilot. They want politicians who are honest, hard working, and effective without supervision. Does anyone believe that if he ran a business, he could structure it in such a way that he could hire people without studying their resumes or the needs of the company and all employees thus hired would be honest, hard working, and effective without any supervision from the boss?
And yet that's exactly what people want from government. Don't study the job applicants (candidates), don't study the needs of the company (the issues), and pay no attention to those employees and what they do after they're hired. How can this seem reasonable for members of Congress when it's such an absurd approach for a business?
A better informed electorate would take time. It would take work. It would involve challenges. And it would never be 100% successful. But there is simply no substitute for it..
I appreciate your offer to deny me my constitutional right to reelect representatives I think are doing a good job because you believe I can't exercise good judgement in that arena, but no thanks. Instead of trying to deny me my rights, focus your energies on getting voters to stop shirking their responsibility to be informed voters. Seek to help the masses understand the value of this quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
@skytag, that is very well reasoned and explained. Thank you for taking that time.
Really well reasoned and solid response skytag. I agree with you that term limits aren't the answer. But I also believe that the hope for informed voters is a bridge too far. People are influenced by the media and he who has the most $$$ is most likely to win. There are many folks that do a good job in our government. There are many more that seem to have selfish intent. The amount of money involved in campaigns is a little out of hand. Perhaps what we need are some incentives.
If he / she who has the most $$$ in campaign funds wins. What does that incentivize? I would guess that it incentivizes those who have the dough to ante in for tit-for-tat. To provide a promise of money in return for a future favor. If this happens half the time, this is a sad state of affairs. I believe this happens more than half the time.
I too want those that are devoted to service and know how to get things done to spend a lifetime doing it if they have the desire and can avoid the corrupting effects of favor trading. But I think we've allowed some unhealthy things to happen. That, in itself, cannot be that hard to undo through some rule restructuring. There is integrity in America, it's just not getting the most attention.
Actually, there was another purpose for the Senate till it was erased by the 17th Amendment: giving state legislatures direct influence on federal legislation. Senators were originally selected by whatever method individual state governments chose (mostly elected by state legislatures), not directly by the people. This acted as a powerful check on the expansion of federal power since all federal laws had to pass a vote by people who served at the pleasure of state governments directly. The Presidential Electoral College used to work the same way.
The shift to popular elections for senators (and presidential electors) may have been motivated by a desire to address real problems, but it ultimately has proven far more deadly to the concept of limited government than any ot the problems it was meant to address. Turns out, those guys knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution.
Nowadays, senators of all stripes and parties trample the rights of states and the limitations of the 10th Amendment with reckless abandon while whoring themselves directly to cobbled alliances of special interest voters–a process that Iceland has now expedited through the wonders of social media.
"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts." –George Washington's Farewell Letter
I think Mr. Zakaria's declaration that this process is "already working" is a bit premature and laughable given the gems of popular wisdom that he cited as accruing from this stratagem.
Good luck, Iceland: you're going to need it.
Very true, and this is a good point which should be kept in mind in any discussion of the Senate. Thank you.
When we talk about the original appropriation of the Upper and Lower houses of Congress there are a couple of things to remember: a.) how seats were originally allocated, & b.) the original population disparity compared to today.
Originally Senators were elected by state legislatures. Over time some states changed their election laws to allow for the popular election of Senators. It wasn't until 1913 that this was changed to popular votes nation-wide via Constitutional Amendment.
When the Constitution was first approved the largest population disparity between states represented in the Senate was 8 to 1. Today the largest disparity is 74 to 1 (California to Wyoming). For matters in the Senate, voters in California have 1/74th the voting power of voters in Wyoming. This disparity is practically astronomical and unforeseeable during the founders time. We need to do something to level that playing field. What issues is Wyoming really getting pushed around on? Does Wyoming really deserve statehood with a total population no bigger than a medium-sized city?
And look at California's budget issues compare to Wyoming's. I think Wyoming does just fine despite their low population. The last thing we need is to let California have more of a say in anything.
By the same token, in matters of voting in the House, California has 74/1 say. It's a balance.
Boy is this author clueless – and i mean CLUELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great post, this guy is so out of touch with the purpose of the constitution like most other liberals the constitution just gets in the way so eliminating/re-doing would be a great step to further grow the federal government.
If anything let's start over the with original document and re-build amendments like slavery and the right to vote. The federal government has grown to an unsustainable level and the ONLY hope we have is the constitution.
Yep! No need to spend so much on government 'function' that do nothing for 99.99% of the population. Reduce our TAXES!
Wow, your comment is asinine. I especially like how you argue that it should not be changed while stating "let it be continued to be modified as people see fit." Perhaps you should do some research, like on the English language for starters. When you get up to 3rd grade level then maybe you can wade into a complicated issue like this one without displaying your ignorance.
Good call. Thanks for responding with that knowledge. That article is written with lots of biases.
What a liberally biased question to revise the constitution. The only ones that what to change the constitution are those that don't get their way (health care). We already have a way to make needed changes and have done so in the past.
@ Rick House
I would also add that the Senate was not for the people. The purpose of the Senate was to represent the "state" to the federal government, and the senator chosen by his state government. It wasn't until the early 20th cent that the Constitution was amended so the people voted for the senator. Personally I think we should go back to that (not having senator chosen by popular vote). Not running for state election – or more importantly – not spending time trying to get campaign money, might allow them to actually do the jobs they've been sent to Washington for.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Zakaria understands the US Senate at least as well as you do. Yes, it is meant to be a way to give a voice to smaller and rural states, but to say that people don't believe the Senate should be democratic is just stupid. I think many Americans agree that the current system ignores proportional representation so badly as to make the system totally unfair, and not to mention DC has no voice whatsoever in the Senate and not a real voice in the House. But at least the Senate works, unlike the presidential electoral system, which is just ridiculous. I don't care if the founding fathers thought it was a good idea or not, if there are two people running for president and one gets more votes than the other, he should be president. That this isn't assured in the current system is a slap in the face to democracy.
In short, despite being incredibly innovative in the private sector, the public sector in the US is extremely reluctant to change anything – whether that's adopting the metric system like every other country, changing one dollar notes into one dollar coins or changing how the electoral system works. In some cases this is a good thing – it provides continuity and stability to the country. But in other cases it is just stupid and results in the American government following methods that are totally outdated.
Exactly what I thought when I read his senate example. I actually somewhat liked the idea of rewriting the constitution to fit our modern needs instead of our colonial ones. However, the legitimacy of this author just fell completely apart once he used the 'undemocratic senate' argument. Clearly, this author is just a journalist scrub trying to stir a buzz. Give my an author who can argue this with factual and in depth understanding of the constitution, and then maybe I'll think he has a point. Until then, I actually think our current one is fine. The founding fathers allowed change through the amendment system, so there is no reason to start from scratch, even though doing so would be kind of a neat idea.
I think the real issue with the modern-day Senate is not small states vs. large states, but rise of the two-party system and the 60-vote super-majority requirement to pass legislation. In the modern two-party system we have now that is very polarized (which was never envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution), it's almost impossible to pass legislation in the Senate with 60 votes.
The question is whether it's fair the political minority to hold the political majority hostage in the Senate since 60 votes is so hard to get. With the 60 vote super-majority rule, legislation could, and often is, squashed in the Senate that a majority of the american population would support. The 60-vote rule should be changed to be a simple majority vote so that 51 votes is sufficient to pass legislation so that legislation more accurately reflects the will of the people, as Fareed suggests, rather than political gamesmanship.
I'm not ready to agree with your solution, but I DO agree with your assertion to one of the major problems afflicting the Senate, and our legislative process, currently.
I personally would LOVE to see what the founding fathers would do with this state of polarized democracy that we've withstood for decades now. I'm not sure going to a simple majority in the Senate is the answer, but an answer IS needed.
As for the re-write of the Constitution, it's my opinion that the strength of the Constitution is that there exists a process for revising it built in. I see no need to scrap it and start fresh. None whatsoever. And yes, I too was upset at this article author's seeming lack of understanding of some of the core ideas in our Constitution.
However, the House of Reps is also not "one man-one vote." The lowest number of Congressmen for any state is 3, no matter how un-populated it may be. This piece of the Constitution is okay in my opinion. I would like to see guaranteed health care so that we may join the ranks of other industrialized democracies.
That is actually not true, Wyoming only has 1 at large congressman and I believe one other state only has 2.
Universal healthcare is a pipe dream that is unattainable. It's not even working in other industrial nations. Furthermore, people in Europe are terrified of us getting Universal healthcare. It discourages specialized medicine and everyone there comes here when they have a unique health problem. I am someone with a specialized condition. Had America had universal healthcare in the mid 1980's when i was born, I would likely not be alive today. Finally, philosophically speaking, what right does 90% of Americans have to take the money of 10% of Americans in order to pay for their own healthcare? Charity is great, we should all donate to charity. Government run forced charity however is wrong.
Obviously, Fareed knows the purpose of the two houses and if you take the one one vote quote literally thats wrong.
The point is the senate was designed to balance big and small states when the US was only 5% urbanized versus 80% today. It was also to consider that big states had areas that would not always vote at a high percentage because they had a frontier. So you had Pennsylvania which had the biggest city and biggest frontier fighting in the big state camp and New Jersey in the small state camp. Also the entire federal tax system had not even evolved so the tax and spend side of it was not considered. And after that states were not created in any natural order. They were almost all admitted in two's – not for balancing big states or small states but to balance the vote for whatever the key issue of the day was. Most of history this was slavery which resulted in trying to create a rural/urban balance in a rapidly urbanizing country. This definitely was not the vision or criteria. Today slavery is gone but the issue is over political party. Hawaii and Alaska came as a pair and DC will remain waiting for statehood unless a Republican state is found. This entire process has now created a huge urban/rural mismatch (on the average – sure you can cherry pick exceptions).
If you take the ratio of power back then in Senate a small state citizen had 2-3 times more voting power than a big state. The ratio between CA and ND is now around 70X. This political calculation impacts spend so -for example even though California pays in more than 100 times in federal tax revenue during the Recovery Act ND recieved 1/30th of the amount of California! (with 1/100th of the contribution and 1/10th of the population). This story is the same for many of the smaller pork addicted states – many of whom then later have the nerve to say they run responsible budgets.
The founding fathers never intended for this to happen so Fareeds question on reform is valid. The body doesn't have to reflect 1 man 1 vote but it should reflect some higher principle than enabling pork to rural states.
Correction: 1/50th the population.
Agreed. "The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote." I stopped reading after this statement
Why are people such morons. You cant change or update the constitution only add amendments to it which is not the same thing though it does change the interpretation of it. The 19th amendment which allowed women the right to vote is an example.
Not true, Paulie. The 12th amendment explicitly changed the procedures for presidential elections that were laid out in Article 2. It didn't just "change the interpretation of it". Maybe you should be more careful about calling others morons when you don't know what you're talking about.
Rick, you make some good points but the insulting tone really is uncalled for and is not helpful in an open discussion.
I apologize if you found it insulting in "tone". Many have said it was my use of the term "ignorant". While I used the term correctly (lack of knowledge), many people often take it as an insult. That is not how it was meant. That being said, I felt insulted, myself. By his obvious disdain for the American system, so much so that he failed to make a salient point regarding the Senate, which was one of his central arguments. For someone to suggest wholesale scrapping of a Constitution, that person should have a better understanding of what his rationale truly is. His "ignorance" was appalling.
IS THIS GUY, ZACHARIA FAREED AN AMERICAN? WHY WOULD AN ARAB WANTS TO CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION? UHM!!!
You know JG.. there are always mouth breathers in every comment section. Thanks for raising your hand (in all caps too) to let us know who you are.
You must be a Tea Party supporter to be so ignorant. Number one, he is INDIAN, not ARAB, not that I expect you to know the difference AND A NATURALIZED AMERICAN CITIZEN, not that I would expect you to know what that means.
GO SPEW YOUR IGNORANCE ON FAUX NEWS OR SOME OTHER CONSERVATIVE BUBBLE MEDIUM.
He is an Indian-American, not an Arab. So, don't be racist
I agreee that he does not understand the set up of the Senate. The House has the population-based represenation. The Senate has the "equal-state" – based representation. My daughter just thoroughly learned this in her 5th grade social studies class. And she knows it, because got an A on her test.
"I" WANT WHAT I WANT IN THE CONSTITUTION! OR LET'S JUST BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND!
Thank you, Rick. I'm glad someone understands the purpose of having two Senators per state. Zakaria obviously doesn't understand it. Zakria also criticizes the Senate as "undemocratic." The simple response is: It's not supposed to be democratic. We live in a republic. How can we take his suggestions for "reform" seriously when he doesn't even understand the system we have now?
Rick could have made his legitimate points without being insulting. What is about the Web that anonymous comments bring out the 6 grader in people? I am from a Southern state, and we do believe that the balance between democracy and federalism is an important one for our Republic. So, good points, Rick, but tend to your manners. Best, Scott in Atlanta
Many have said my use of the term "ignorant" was insulting. If that is what you meant, please let me explain. While I used the term correctly (lack of knowledge), many people often take it as an insult. That is not how it was meant.
That being said, I felt insulted, myself. By his obvious disdain for the American system, so much so that he failed to make a salient point regarding the Senate, which was one of his central arguments. For someone to suggest wholesale scrapping of a Constitution, that person should have a better understanding of what his rationale truly is. His "ignorance" was appalling.
I think Zakaria was just asking us to think about it rather than as a serious proposal. What if we would re write our constitution how would it be different from the one we have. think about this
1 Keep the bill of rights and/or change them so that everyone has equal protection under the law
2 Get rid of representitive government altogether
3 Using current technology every voter would be given the chance to vote on new laws.
4 Laws and ammendments could be recommended but in order to et them to a vote there would have to be some sort of process which a certain percentage of voters would have to agree that its good enough to vote on. The supreme court or some other body would have to review the law in question before it came to a vote. The bill would have to be in language that everyone could understand, not lawyereze. Have experts come in to answer questions about how proposed bill would expect to change things. Then let the public decide.
5. This would reduce corruption because there would be so many people voting you couldnt bribe all of them. It would eliminate earmarks and pet projects because the bill would have to stand up to national oversite. You would have fewer tax breaks and special concerns for select buisnesses as well. There would be less horse trading to get bills signed into law.
6. You could keep the executive branches and judicial branches the same to keep the checks and balances.
Problems with this:
Would enough people vote to make it worthwhile?
Would enough people be willing to educate themselves on a subject before voting?
How would you make it so that it does not just become a tyranny of the majority?
What would rules for advertising for or against a bill be set up?
Can you set up a voting system secure enough that a smart hacker could not change the number of yes or no votes?
This is just an idea...I think Mr Zakaria was wanting our opinion on how we would change things if we could.
I think Zakaria of all people knows what he's talking about. Yes, we do understand that it's about the states. His argument is... is it right that we recognize a state's power over an individual's power? I don't believe it is. I say one person, one vote in as many senses of the word as possible. We need huge revisions in our government. We really, really do.
While changing the constitution might be a good idea, should we do it while Corporate America has such a mighty hold on Congress? I seriously fear the return of slavery, child labor, seven-day work weeks and no health care or retirement benefits, if 'The Monied Gentry' are able to control the process.
IF? IF? Where have you been lately? They already have FULL control!!!! Why do you think we are in the sorry-a@@ed economical shape we are in? Big business making pisspoor financial decisions then the government has to bail their sorry buts out to prevent a total economic collapse. One that would be many times worse than the GREAT DEPRESSION was, so we nearly bancrupt the country to keep them afloat yet they continue to report billions in profits......... on & on & on it goes.
So THEY ALREADY OWN THE ENTIRE CONTRY. We are no longer a republic even we are corporate property. Perfect example: the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the class-action suit against Wal-Mart.
You forgot to add that Senators where originally appointed, that Blacks and women could not vote and that the only voters where white males who owned property. Very, very undemocratic beginnings to this country!
While the Electoral College is a controversial issue that deserves debate, I believe there are other issues that need discussion. My three changes would concentrate on:
1. Term limits for all politicians at all levels of government.
2. Serious limits on all campaign contributions from all individuals, groups, companies, etc.
3. The elimination or severe curtailment of paid lobbying from all groups left and right and specially fom business and unions, especially including the move from politician to lobbyist and back.
From Wikipedia – "Before the 2008 U. S. Presidential election, Zakaria endorsed Barack Obama on his CNN program. In May 2011 it was revealed in The New York Times that President Obama "has sounded out" Zakaria concerning Middle East issues in meetings with him." ANY HIDDEN AGENDAS HERE????? .......................................................
Beware of the man bearing koolaid....
Mr. Zakaria you are, without question, an idiot. The article is a great example of how poor the state of national journalism is in the USA. You obviously have no idea how the US House and Senate actually work. It's like you skimmed Wikipedia without even reading/understanding anything.. What a shame!!! I'm very disappointed!
anyone and i mean anyone who says get rid of electoral college is a moron ONE PERSON ONE VORE ARE YOU NUTS NO SMALL STATE WOULD ALLOW THAT they would have no say in election
out founding fathers set it up to cover both ideas congress on amount of people and senate each state equal
the combines total of both is your states vote in pres election THATS WHY THEY HAVE TO WIN STATES
besides you have to have 2/3 majority of states to change it NOT GONNA HAPPEN PERIOD
Rick talks of our Constitution and Country as a Democracy. Are we not a Republic? Reference the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think our forefathers thought of us as a Democracy and where is it written in the Constitution that we are a Democracy?
This idea that democracy is a good thing is whats wrong with rewriting the constitution. This country is a republic and it should remain a republic. Tyranny can exist in many forms. And tyranny of the majority is equally as bad as tyranny of an individual. Possibly even worse.
The electoral college is an manifestation of the nature of this country. it eliminates the concept of simple majority and requires something bigger. It or something like it is necessary to ensure we don't get tyranny of the majority.
I disagree completely. The Constitution of Los Estados Unidos needs to be written anew, not just revised. The fact that anyone can vote and anyone can procreate is insane. The entire list of fixes would be pages long but these two would be a great start.
Wow, Rick House you sure are a piece of work. Although you might be right on the reasoning for the Senate vs House reps, you don't need to be so condescending. The author is merely identifying what some see as inequities with our current system in order to initiate ideas for changes. Settle down your arrogant, and just plain wrong, attacks.
@mikem
I was not "condescending". I was being accurate. His lack of understanding of the role of the Senate equates to ignorance of said role. If you dislike the term "ignorance", please suggest another.
And if you find my point of view "arrogant", how about the arrogance of suggesting we scrap a system of government which he obviously does not care to research nor understand? Or how about the arrogance of someone replying to a post saying my point of view was "just plain wrong" without giving the first bit of evidence to the contrary? If you have something to add to the conversation, please do. But make it have substance. I find your post condescending in it's own right. No, I find it insulting.
The heck with election reform etc.... make illegal immigration a crime, insure that illegals have no rights including healthcare, schools, etc., change the rule regarding anchor babies to make them illegal if their parents are illegal, and insure a hefty jail term of hard labor for all illegals.
No where does Zakaria show he doesn't understand the logic; he simply says it's undemocratic by definition. This is a fact. This may be designed to be undemocratic on purpose, but you are not refuting his statement. Now, a country that is not "democratic" can mean it is a "republic", which is the case for the US.
Zakaria is simply asking whether we have to upload the old tradition of keeping the "mob" out. Your argument is that we shouldn't because you think it's a good idea to ensure there is no mob rule. That's a valid argument. Zakaria doesn't think there is a need for that safety net, I assume. Both can debate that point.
No need to assume Zakaria is stupid. No need for personal attacks.
Oh please. His argument was that the Senate was un-Democratic in context of one-man-one-vote. But that is not the purpose of the Senate. And if he had the slightest understanding of that, I wouldn't have said a word.
Also, "ignorant" is not the same as "stupid". Pointing out that he doesn't know is not a "personal attack".
Here's and example of a personal attack: The only people who think "ignorant" is an insult are either children or just plain stupid.
See how that works?
Rick House, you still don't get it. Zakaria says the Senate is undemocratic and you say it's for a reason and you assume he is ignorant of that reason. This is a wrong assumption.
I say he knows the reason but believes that the reason is no longer good enough. Why can't that be the basis for his op-ed? Why can't he still call the Senate un-democratic? Why do you jump to the conclusion that he must not know there was a reason for the way the Senate was set up. Zakara can be both informed and dismissive of the Senate system. Both can co-exist - like you can be both stupid and ignorant.
Well said, Rick. Zakaria is starting from the assumption that we should not be a union of states, but simply a single country, with no state sovereignty. It does show a glaring lack of understanding of this country's history and form of government. It is precisely this type of centralization of all governmental power that leads to many of our current problems. And then he's advocating letting people on Facebook and Twitter just pipe in with their Christmas lists, and add these things into the new "Constitution."
This is where they really, really had it right, and people today have it as wrong as they can have anything. You CANNOT have rights granted by a new "Constitution" that comprise obligations on other citizens to provide you with goods or services without compensation. The idea is beyond preposterous. People who have these things "guaranteed" to them by law are all slaves, in reality, to the state.
We are FREE in this country, Fareed. FREE. That means something to some of us. To those who long to give it up so that they can create new "rights" for themselves by imposing obligations on others, there are plenty of other countries where that's exactly what you can have. Most of them, in fact.
Instead of writing a new Constitution, we need to fix the treason that goes on in the Congress and the court system where that document is ignored and/or deliberately flouted daily. THAT would be a good way to "rethink" the Constitution. Start living up to it, or change it by the proper process!
People also seem to forgot that we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic, hence the electoral college.
And apparently the author completely forgot about the Roman Senate or Athens attempts at democracy. I do believe those came quite before Iceland.
Rick is 100% on the money. The senate was created so that Rhode Island or Delaware had the same power as California or New York. The House of Reps is for the 'Mob rule' the Senate is not. Rick is correct by pointing out that Zakaria has NOT done his reasearch. The founding fathers new exactly what they wanted; equality of states' powers and rights.
"There is no way a smaller state could block any legislation of larger states." Exactly the reason the Senate needs to be abolished. What business does a state representing a small fraction of the population, say Rhode Island, have saying it deserves to have an equal say in matters of a natural interest on the same level as a state like California or Texas? This is what is and has been wrong with America for a long time; the arrogant belief that some peoples' votes should count more than others because of totally arbitrary circumstances. There is no such thing as "mob rule." If the vast majority of people want something, say lower taxes or legalization of medical marijuana, why should a minority be able to overrule them? The Senate is tyranny incarnate. If Rhode Island wants as much of a say as California, then they should entice some more people to move there.
Fareed Zakaria, instead of trying to change our country for the worse, why not go back to your own country so you can change it from the bottom up, top down, and inside out. You are a fool.
That's right. And while you're at it, let's send the Mexicans back to Mexico, the African Americans back to Africa, the Japanese Americans back to Japan, the Indian Americans back to India, the Irish Americans back to Ireland, the Italian Americans back to Italy.... Hmmmm. Or maybe not right. He wrote a hypothetical news article. To get people talking. The personal attacks on his "ignorance" (not insulting? Yeah, whatever, Rick, you seem all warm and fuzzy to me!) are so sad – whatever happened to civil discourse? Remember? Intelligent statesmen and women? The days when intelligence was valued, not ridiculed? You betcha.
eat me
Well done, great response Rick. Mr. Fareed Zakaria– Your utter ignorance on anything to do with our constitution, how our government works, or why, and the historical writings (i.e. The Federalist Papers) of the time is shameful. I wonder how CNN can justify keeping you employed after an article like this. I am so amazed with your stupidity, especially where you are supposed to be “a trusted news source.”
why are you so afraid of a little discussion? coward
Amendment 1: Universal Marriage Rights for LGBT citizens
Amendment 2: Limit profit margins for manufacturing businesses, in order to discourage price gouging and manipulation of cheap overseas labor.
Amendment 3: Electoral college is counted by county, not by state.
Here's a new and revolutionary thought. How about leaving the constitution alone and stopping our "leaders" from bastardizing every word of it, manipulating it for their own personal gain and using it to hurt the people it was intended to protect?
Umm...I think the Zakaria is aware of the reasons behind the Senate and House make up. This is a very short, simplified article and he is simply mentioning some examples of how the government is at times at odds with pure democracy. He is not proposing necessarily that the Senate members reflect the population of the states they represent. YOU read that into the article.
TOUCH OUR CONSTITUTION AND YOU ARE A DEAD PERSON!!! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!! The United States of America, was declared independent from the monarchy of the rule of England in 1776, and the U S Constitution was a work of masters at design of a new nation, and they gave us a document that provides structure and balance and gives explicit direction on how this nation is to function. No one should ever consider that our CONSTITUTION IS NOT SET IN STONE!!! It most certainly is and those that are even thinking of such a thing are an egrigious insult to this nation and it's founders.
msfsts,
are you *really* ignorant of the fact that the constitution has Amendments? These are CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED! The constitution DOES change. It HAS changed. Your belief that it is set in stone is, well, just plain wrong.
Even the idea of radical changes, such as put forth in this article, is A PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION!
Amazing.
Are you aware since the initial creating of the constitution it has been changed or "Amended" several times. Were it 'Set in stone' as you seem to imply, slavery would never have been abolished. Are you saying you would prefer an America with slavery?
The bicameral legislature exists because the representatives of small states and large states could not reach agreement on how to apportion representation in the legislature. Old Ben Franklin proposed the compromise that created the House and Senate. All the baloney on preventing mob rule and such was manufactured later.
Well spoken and correct.
Well spoken and correct when it comes to house and senate seats. The electoral college is an outdated unnecessary system that should be done away with only when concerned to election of a president. The electoral college is based on population of the given state and was set up so that election count could be done on a local basis because no technology existed that would allow for national election count. This should be changed but we don't even have a unified national voting system to eliminate "hanging chads"
While the electoral college suggestions are not without merit, your suggestion about the Senate shows your total lack of understanding of how (and why) the Senate exists>>>>>
I disagree. the author is not very well educated. we are a republic. the electoral collage and senate seats are in place for a reason.
We are not a democracy. We are a Republic. The republic can stand up to the mob rule of a pure democracy, because the representatives hold the people's power. Do 10 people want to silence 1? Does a natural disaster or civil disobedience in one area take away the people's voice there, because they can't 'get out the vote'?, while another area runs up their vote total? Maybe a big city on the west coast, sees how the vote is going in the central and eastern states, and they rush to vote in GREATER PROPORTION, after the east coast polls have closed. Who represents the displaced interests? Does a Taliban like force or KKK like force or minority defense league spread panic and fear to control the masses? We invite this when we de-regionalize our representative power and votes. Even if only 4 vote in a congressional district, tall the people there have the same representation as if all the people there vote. no more. no less.
Do we let children vote, with promises of candy and ponies? one person on vote. Or do we keep a way (age 18+) to let the vote be completed by mature and wise citizens?
There is a way to change our Constitution. It is a way that keeps us safe from the Tyranny of swift action instead of our checks and balances.
God Bless America and God Bless the Republic. May it stand forever.
Rick,
You are right that representation need not be directly aligned with population. But the value of the senate as a political body diminished dramatically as the number of states increased. Nowadays, it serves merely to empower the political party favored by states with small populations rather than enhance states' rights.
If we redesigned the constitution, I could imagine us creating representation other than according to population. But the senate's time is long past - if we added a second house, it should look nothing like the senate. Maybe the second house would be better if it were proportional in size to a state's GDP - since that factors in economic power, which drives this country.
Small states with few people and little economic value should not be able to dominate political discussions.
Here's how you can get rid of the Constituion:
Globalize the banks
Globalize the corporations
Convince the western countries to form a "union" and create the international monetary fund
Deregulate the banks and corporations
Intermingle the monies
Allow corporations to end their company provided pensions and have workers pay their own way
Workers then invest their money in the stock market which heavily invests in corporations (401Ks)
Corporations raise more cash – CEOs raise their salaries
Create wars so the western countries have to spend money
Undermine jobs in these economies by allowing high imports of cheap products from communist and socialist run countries
Undermine jobs by introducing outsourcing
Cut taxes on the wealthy top 1%
Markets start to crash; governments "forced" to spend more by offering bailouts using the excuse "they are too big to fail"
Bailout money is given to the global banks instead of individuals within their own country
Corporations "suffer" and lay off workers
Bailouts work for a period of time, corporations increase profits but don't rehire workers
Governments become overloaded in debt and then can't pay their bills
Unemployment is through the roof and the average American only makes $32,000 a year
The global banks then force another bailout loan on them..…in exchange for their assets
The governments become so overloaded in debt, they fail to make payments
Western governments fail; Markets fully crash
The world's reserve currency – the dollar – loses all value
Individuals lose all savings
The global banks (and the few running the scam) now own everything
Some foreign countries like China may demand payback
Since the dollar becomes worthless, our government ceases to hold power
The global banks implement a "one world government" as the savior and our Constitution falls
This one world government (and the people runnig it) now owns all major assets
When the government owns everything, guess what it's called?
COMMUNISM
....where you will have zero rights
Communism is not a bad thing in theory. Communism would give equal rights to everyone. There is a common misconception that communism is a bad thing just because of the cold war and how the Soviet Union worked. The problem is that dictators are too greedy and don't give people their rights. Communism does not work, but it is not a bad thing.
Well, hell.....let's rewrite the Bible while we're at it.
that fantasy book has already been rewritten
Your comment is right on point. I getting ready to blast Zacharia the same way. This is not the first time he has misconstrued the law, and I'm sure it will not be the last. And, as far as changing the Constitution is concerned, a person can read the actual doctrine and be astonished to find that the words don't mean what they say, they mean what the Supreme Court says they say. Whether that's legitimate or not is another question, but the document is always subject to change under the rubric of judicial review.
CNN should be wise enough to pull inaccurate propaganda like this off it's site. Obviously Fareed has a poor understanding of why the Senate and House were organized the way they were. The House to closely represent a popular vote and the Senate to protect the rights of each state. Furthermore the tone of his article is very disturbing as he makes the Constitution sound more like a corporate document.
--How nice for a first generation American like this author to make such a suggestion as to scrap our constitution. I have countless forefathers who died to protect what the document stands for. I have lost all respect for this author as it was certainly not is place to make such a suggestion that demonstrates a total lack of understanding of American etiquette. --
Zakaria comes from India which inherited the Parliamentary System of government, its not surprising he would question the Senate. He may not understand the history of the Great Compromise (setting up a bi-cameral legislature to ensure equality between large and big states). He may also not understand that simplicity is the reason the constitution has survived so long, its incredibly hard to make changes to and requires a great deal of national consensus, which takes a long time. The Electoral College isn't in the constitution, true, but there are innumerable pieces of law which allow for changes in elections – such as the Civil Rights Acts – and this may not require a constitutional amendment. States like Colorado or California which have 150+ Amendments are examples of how popular voting on constitutions can be problematic we end up with documents that conflict in portions.
Regardless the question seems to be how can we incorporate changes in government using technology? There is the idea of a virtual democracy in which people vote online directly or through representatives. I believe that in the US case it is a very good idea to explore how social media can be used to make government more responsive. Fixing problems like the electoral college, which does work despite its controversy, are more simply done away with or addressed using social media to influence governmental committees. Iceland's example of using social media to influence public policy is great and much more should be done. A series on how social media is used in Public Policy already in he US would be great! If he's curios he should check out the Deliberative Democracy Handbook, (Castil and Levine 2007), is a great source for how technology, especially at the local level, is helping to change public policy.
It doesn't mean anything that he comes from India. There are plenty of parlimentary systems in this world. We all understand how other systems work. Also, back then, a lot of state rivalries happened. Now that does not happen as Congress looks at the whole nation as a whole instead of each senator for only his own state. There his argument does make sense.
I think you should retract your comment for acting like a pompous ___. Even when you are right, there is a "classy" way to suggest it. You should try that next time.
Well said. Thank you.
Sylvanas Windrunner for President in 2012!
The Senate was also setup in a time when the population identified with a particular colony/state (ie They thought of themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers — not 'Americans'. The American national identity came much later.
Given how mobile we are these days, I say scrap the Senate and go with a more unicameral system for the federal government. That could also give 3rd parties a chance to have influence, and at least weaken the 2-party system we have now.
Also, the districts would need to shrink considerably to get more local reps elected. As is, the House is stuck in size, forcing districts to grow ever larger. Create multiple federal districts and connect them online to house them all (no need to put everything in one city these days, either).
Another suggestion would be to prohibit non-individual money from elections. We need to level the playing field to have real democracy, not some corporatocracy.
While we're at it, bring back E Pluribus Unum and rout out the religion injected into our secular state. It should be an agnostic entity, though participants are free to worship as they wish. Take Turkey, for example!
Thank you for your comment about the Senate. Complete ignorance. We must look at educating people about the history of this document and the ratification debates following.
F()@% that dirty Hindu!!!
You are a racist person. This is a discussion and response area, not a racial hatred site. So, please do not disturb us here.
I think the person who wrote the article should understand how the Constitution was written and why before representing themselves as a journalist. Unfortunately we now live in this media frenzy world where so many people, who know so little, are able to say so much when they have no idea what thing really mean! Just like this article!. Those of the younger generation seem to think they can change everything (and should) when they are obviously uneducated and haven't thought everything through. Those who wrote the Constitution weren't "tweens" who follow blindly whatever they see online. They were educated and experienced men, who had seen and lived in life- and a REAL life! Not staring at something fake like a computer screen. Man it scares me how articles like this get published, and uneducated folk will agree.
Fareed, can I see that passport?
Mr. Zakaria would be better served, as would his readers, if he took an American Government course. Better yet, we might all be better served if he and others who think the Constitution is out of date, moved to Iceland.
You could have expressed your views without being insulting
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska - 70%, DC - 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine - 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska - 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada - 72%, New Mexico - 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island - 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont - 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%;
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
THATS A LIE AND YOU KNOW IT
Kirk, That's very mature of you to simply call me a liar about everything. Care to show any facts that dispute what I've said?
I agree with so many of my progressive colleagues. It's time to scrap the Constitution! Especially the Second Amendment, and the First......and...,
Rick, your an arse..we all know your point, we know the smaller states need a voice. Fareed is just offering up an idea for debate. I'm sure your a political scholar and all, but I don't see a need to call him ignorant and retract his statement.
Thanks, Rick- my thoughts exactly. Fareed's otherwise excellent article was nearly ruined for me by his apparent ignorance of the purpose of a two-house legislature.
Let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history; it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years. The U.S. Constitution’s greatness lies in its core principle.
Mr. Zakaria he is showing his true colors he is anti-American !!
So, by changing Senate's structure you want to change US to mob ruling like India and Pakistan...
India is not a mob ruling. It has the world's largest democracy and the world's longest constitution, with rights for all. It is a Parliamentary System based on United Kingdom.
WHO IS THIS MAN THAT SUGGEST WE CHANGE THE LAW OF THE LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW?
FAREED ZAKARIA, you have zero understanding of the Constitution or anything resembling Liberty you pile of Indian curry, I am sick of stupid uneducated foreigners pretending to revere the Constitution, and at the same time piss on it. As for your "no industry" comment the American Colonies were making excellent Steel and textiles for years before the Constitutional Convention, they also were shipwrights, millwrights, and hundreds of other skilled trades because of a "free system of English laws", I hope you slip and break your leg on some paneer naan, go back to India, you filth.
You have to agree that all starting nations are a little weak. The industry there was weaker than it was in the 1800s and 1900s.
Although I agree with most of what you say, the point is that in re-writing the constitution there is a real danger of 'screwing' ourselves instead, in trying to fix something that is not broken. I believe that, as it has been done in the passed, tion.the amendment process is the best path tofinding solutionst.
One amendment I like to see is to prohibit members of Congress from voting on any bill before them that would affect any business either for profit or non-profit, from which they have received (other than for legitimate employment) monies and/or anything of value in the previous 2 years, or are receiving monies or anything of value (this includes campaign contributions), or will be receiving any monies and/or anything of value from such interests, including employment promises withing the proceding 5 years after leaving Congress.
We don't need slum dog zakaria or any of his commicrat thieving friends destroying or fundamentally transform our Constitiution . Try working instead of stealing or using corrupt democrat politicians aka marxist politicians and corrupt unions to steal for you. One nation under GOD not government you filthy heathens. Excuse me I need to go to the restroom and take a zakaria.
I wanted to add to Rick's posting about the history of the Senate and House. Rick is very correct in everything he says and I would add that the Senate was originally elected by each state's respective legislature. I believe it was under Woodrow Wilson that they changed the election of senators to a popular vote. Originally Senators were not sent to DC to represent the people, they were sent to represent the interests of their state. The House of Representatives was designed to represent the people and thus is why the number of Reps each state has is dependent on population.
"Update the constitution" is code for "Destroy the constitution"
This foreigner suggests destroying our constitution?
the original construction of the Senate, as created by Ben Franklin, was to represent the state. Therefor the 2 senators where appointed by the state legislation. The House was to represent the people, and the Senate was to represent the state. Thats why each state got 2 no matter their size. It wasnt until Woodrow Wilson and the 17th that changed this "in the name of democracy" but really it was so they could create the Federal Reserve.. something the states would never allow, but the mob wouldnt care about. Thats why you get to elect a Senator.
ALLOW FEDERAL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON WEEKENDS. TUESDAYS WAS PUT IN BECAUSE FARMERS CAME INTO TOWN ON TUESDAYS
With regards to the Senate – I agree, it is fine as is (two votes per state, that is) because of things like CA vs RI. We have the House who vote based on actual numbers.
Modifying the constitution, or starting fresh, has a lot of merit. It doesn't mean we would lose things like Freedom of "expression", but we might rewrite it to be a freedom of expression, with responsibility (e.g., slander prevention). Right to bear arms might be rewritten, to be clear (right now it is hotly contested, and is very state based). Wouldn't it be great to have a document that doesn't say "3/5ths of all other persons" – referring to slaves.
With regards to Iceland – someones suggestion of stopping shark finning...that is too small to fit in a constitution, but a greater amendment could be written to include "Observation and adherence to global conservation efforts to minimize the effects which cause animal/plant populations to become extinct". This would cover shark finning, whale hunting, etc.
The US constitution is a living document (5th grade history for me, in a public school). As such it was intended to be modified, and nothing says it can't be scrapped for something else. Unfortunately we can't agree on most things, so I'd wager we would have a hard time with this document. It should be global, but simple, not providing favor to any one particular group, locale, etc. It should not include too many specifics of a health care plan, as those change over time, but should include some kind of information. Then again, some of the country doesn't want a national health care plan and some does – so who knows if it gets put in.
This is a beast to tackle, and our population is way bigger then Icelands. Plus we tend to eat our own young.
It is frighteningly stunning how little people actually know about our government, how it is set up, and more importantly ... WHY! For Fareed to suggest that just because Iceland and its 320,000 people (which is fewer people than live in 10 square blocks in Manhatten) decided to scrap their Constitution means that we should consider the same, is truely amazing.
There are mechanisms in place to amend our Constitution as needed (which Fareed acknowledges). So to throw the whole thing out because ..... why?? You don't like the way its been amended? Please explain to me what's wrong with our current Constitution that requires it to be thrown away and re-written? There is nothing. Apparently Fareeds only complaint about the Contitution are the conditions under which it was drafted in 1787.
Fareed seems to be saying that he wants us to consider scrapping the Constitution because he doesn't like the Electoral College. Well if he actually UNDERSTOOD the reasoning behind the system he wouldn't complain. The Electoral College was initially designed to keep the larger states from forcing smaller states into legislation with which they did not agreed (see Virginia at the time). Remember ... we had a group of individual colonies that were trying to throw off an oppressive government in England so the last thing the state of Rhode Island would want is to have to be forced into anything by Virginia! Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that the large states would otherwise control presidential elections.
Check this out http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/ . It give a really good representation of WHY a presidental election by popular vote would REALLY be unfair. Basically ... if the presidental election were strictly by popular vote then all a candidate would have to do is win 8 – 10 states and they would take the election. THAT certainly doesn't sound very democratic to me!!! That 40 states' votes would immediately become irrelevant!
The whole point here is that we are NOT a direct Democracy, for which Fareed seems to be wishing. Our representative form of government was set up so that the individual States had representation on the federal level ... not the individual citizen.
The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. It would no longer matter who won a state.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska - 70%, DC - 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine - 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska - 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada - 72%, New Mexico - 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island - 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont - 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states - that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Sir, the idea that abolishing the electoral college would make 40 states irrelevant is simply not true. In theory a candidate probably could gather 50% of the vote in 10 states, but he would have to win those with 100% support, which is impossible. Even Reagan in his landslide victory of 1984 had not achieved such a support. His best result was 74,5% in Utah (not one of those "big states" you talk about). Generally speaking, his margins were thiner in big states – in his home state of California, he won with 57,5% (check for yourself on http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ ). Abolishing the electoral college would in fact level the field for all voters. Today, it doesn't matter whether you win a state with 51% or 75% – rendering the vote of millions of people invalid.
It is also important to realise that the world has changed since the 18th century. Territory is no longer so important a factor. A guy living in LA can be much your "neighbour" to a much larger extent than a guy living across the street in New York. The former can easily be your colleague, relative, business partner etc., while the latter you have never met and never will. Doesn't your boss living in LA (for example) belong to your community much more than a person you have no dealings with. Is territorial proximity really as crucial as it was 230 years ago?
One last point that I forgot: You are wrong to accuse Fareed of being a supporter of direct democracy. Few people have argued so powerfully against it as he did in the Future of Freedom (great book, by the way).
Globalists, you will NOT have your NEW WORLD ORDER.
You will fail and you will face the consequences.
This diatribe is wrong on SO many levels that I hardly know where to begin. Using Facebook and Twitter to vote on issues is asking for vote tampering . Even their polls are untrustworthy. Requiring a Constitutional Convention would be right up the alley of the One World Government lackeys such as yourself. You know darn well that once a CC is called that the voting is not limited to the question at hand and any and all Amendments can come into play. I bet you and your CFR friends would love to see that happen. The Constitution took almost 11 years to complete because our Forefathers were trying to thwart any future traitorous talk such as yours. The Constitution calls for protection from enemies both " foreign and domestic". Our country was not only an agricultural society. Didn't you learn about the Industrial Revolution in your roundtable schools. Our problems started when we allowed the Federal Reserve to take over our economy and you know it. Your demi-god Edward Mandel House pressured Pres. Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve act and then he founded your CFR. As far as the Senate representation of two senators per state you must be aware that that was implemented because this nation was never meant to be a democracy. It was intended as a Republic and was such until the passing of the 17th Amendment which the CFR demanded . NICE TRY , Zakaria but we the people are waking up. Tell them that at your next Bilderberger meeting so you won't make an ass out of yourself again with such nonsense as this.
I have not read all of the comments, yet, but I do not see where anyone has pointed out that the Constitution's amendment provision specifically prohibits any amendment to deprive any state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent. In other words, Zakaria recommends the one amendment that is forbidden. (Maybe someone has pointed that out, but if someone did, I missed it.)
This guy clearly knows nothing about the Constitution as it relates to the Senate.
In the article, Zakaria says,
“The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin’s six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California’s 36 million people. That’s not exactly one man, one vote.”
Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”
The Senate was formed to represent the individual States and their interests, not represent the people.
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
The House of Representatives was formed to represent the People.
However, the 17th Amendment watered down the States’ right to representation in the Legislature. It put the power of electing Senators in the hands of the people. This may be one of the worst Amendments to the Constitution. If only the people back then knew how badly they were screwing over Americans for generations…
Check the wiki: bit (dot) ly/9HVw
Also I will add...The problem is with A. Not adhering to the principles of the Constitution in the first place. The Senate was set up as a split of power on behalf of the states themselves. When the 17th Amendment occured...One of your so called "Revisions", it tipped the balance of power away from State Sovereignty and more towards a "National" government. Mr Zakira, I would suggest you read the Ratification debates before writing such a silly and uniformed article
Constitutions are different. By the size of jurisdiction the Icelandic constitution is a medium city by-law. Of course it's all eventually going to be online, but for it to be efficient we need to breed culture of online communication and learn what works and what doesn't. So in US one shouldn't start with the Constitution. We need a few years of getting used to the idea. For that I am building a service called Law Delta (as Nile delta), where there will be accessible all laws (some federal already are), where people can read, discuss, vote, and propose their own bills. I am trying to promote political culture and legal awareness that will help bring the future nearer. http://lawdelta.org
Zakaria just what in the hell are you smoking?
My guess is he is with those who want to get rid of that pesky second amendment they hate so much because Soros pays them to.
Yes, you are buying into the Soros conspiracy. Your statement is just as stupid as saying that Rupert Murdoch was paying to get rid of the First Amendment. Grow up!
He is! And so am I – We all get together at midnight at.... well, I don't want to tell you all that much. Unless you know the secrete handshake and password. Wink, wink!
You people are just nuts. Instead of articulating an intelligent comment about his idea you babble right-wing nonsense about imagined attacks on the 2nd Amendment.
No clue if he is with the "let's remove the 2nd Amendment".. But I sure am.. If a little bit of logic, a touch of knowledge and a simple look at the way things evolve could ever get within your skull, you would see the complete imbecility in maintaining an Amendment designed for a time and a set of circumstances, and never meant to live beyond the power consolidation of the USA. But having a gun probably makes you feel sooooo much bigger and better....And THAT was not the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Obviously too much Obamaganga.
If liberals attempt to remove the 2nd amendment, you will have an outbreak of civil war. And the first to perish is going to be the liberals... why? Because they got rid of their guns! OMG... yes... YES... PLEASE take my 2nd amendment rights away... its time to clean up society!
Why update it? Our politicians ignore it anyway. Yay America!
Judging on the legislature we've seen, I don't just ignore it, they actually have no idea what it says...or don't care...
When you said "don't care".. also meant ignoring it...
They make more money by not knowing. If they defended the American people, they would not have those golden parachutes.
I was thinking the same thing, maybe the people of Iceland could use our constitution, we aren't
Except for Texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. Someone who actually still believes and follows the Constitution, who wants to limit federal government, and who wants to return America to the citizens instead of being run by big government, big corporations, and big banks.
Agree entirely. Very, very, very sad, but even more true.
No! What would be the point of changing the constitution anyway if the government refuses to follow it, and actually installs corrupt judges to deliberately subvert it. We are now fully controlled by the military industrial complex.
We are controlled, but mostly by our own ignorance. I"m not sure you can say we are industrial. If there was ever a world war III, we would lose because our industry no longer exists. We would not be able to mas produce the arms we would need like we did in WW II. It would be game over for America, unless we use our nukes, in which case it is game over for Earth.
I'm not saying your wrong, but Im just curious on where you got your information or is it opinion? Why dont you think we cant mass produce if needed.
Look around you Sam. The industry in this country is long gone. We produce almost nothing. We import almost everything. Is Microsoft going to make a tank for you? Because thats about all we have left.
i beg the differ. if we use our nukes. it might be detrimental for living organisms on earth, but to say game over for earth is a little too severe. earth will still exist even if a country launches a thousand nukes on its surface, but whether it will still be inhabitable or not is another story.
Well, as long as those microbes are American Microbes, I guess my point is moot.
The DOD budget allocations now total over 30% of the Federal expenditure commitments – And yes the military budget Has DOubled in just he past 10 years. But not totally in control–
That's where the corporations are in control – excessively influence All Three branches of our government.
Corporate lobbying, campaing funding, and several other areas of excessive influence Must be reformed!!
I strongly agree with the IceLanders!–
Many have asked for guaranteed, good health care. Others want campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal. (worth repeating)!!
Where'd you get your numbers or, more specifically, what's your methodology? DoD in the 2010 was ~19 percent of the US budget.
Don't matter... Deathwing is coming to a town near you to pwn you. Oh wait! You can get an achievement for that!
Sylvanas Windrunner leading the Forsaken Party in 2012! Woot!
Logically, it should be updated, but this country is too politically divided, it would be a really bad idea.
Please explain why logically? Age has nothing to do with transcendent values and principles.
Um I don't know, It's been revised 27 times. Why do you think it might need to be updated?
As perfect as the constitution is, it doesn't reflect how our country is today. the "fathers" didn't have a crystal ball, they couldn't imagine where we would go as a society and how big we would get. Updating the document to reflect our current society isn't bad idea.
Assuming there are transcendent values and principles...
Everything needs a context. If society has changed enough, it makes sense to update it. Even if the agreement is to leave it just as is, it's still a discussion that should be had.
Let's see, industrial revolution maybe? When the actual empirical facts change, its always good to reconsider your "transcendental" principles.
President Jefferson, a founding father, believed that the Constitution should be rewritten every generation because the dead should not rule the the living.
“politically divided” is a bad description. On one side there is freedom and personal responsibility, while the other is a view that has twisted the meaning of every moral concept that has ever existed..
Both the Left and the Right could write that exact sentence but they don't share the same views. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not everyone shares your definition of freedom and personal responsibility.
We seem to be morphing into a judicial dictatorship of minority rule. Might we limit federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to a single term of three years?
You can not limit the terms of supreme court justices because the whole reason that they are supposed to be in the supreme court forever is that they do not have to fall in to a political party. They are supposed to use un baised. Now i know that is not true but you can not take powers away from them that they have had since 1787. Now i do agree we need to change the constitution but it can not happen right now. We need to start a grass roots campign of people to change it. We need people who will take political office with every mind set that they are there to help the american people not to secertly help corporation.
We do and SHOULD have minority rule in this country. Remember, only INDIVIDUALS have rights, and that means that the majority does not rule over him. It means that the minority of ONE is sovereign and has rights that no majority can violate. That is the role of the judicial branch...to defend the rights of individuals as expressed in the Constitution AGAINST the will of the majority as expressed through voting.
Don't be too fond of majority rule. When the majority rules the individual has no rights. And the when the individual has rights the majority does not rule.
Sid
Zakaria is a globalist, he wants a world government, this is why he wants to "change" the constitution. Don't fall for the world of this traitor.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/zakaria-america-is-doomed-because-it-fails-to-embrace-globalism.html
America doesn't need the rest of the world. That is clearly evident. The world needs us. Everybody needs to embrace the US... not the other way around. Zakaria... you can always go back to home country if you like. I hear you need to irradiate and then filter the drinking water 20 times over before it becomes reasonably safe to drink. And you want us to embrace India? Come on pal. It is clear... the United States is what everybody aspires to... so why do we need to embrace the rest of the world when clearly everybody wants what we have?
Prisonplanet is a right-wing lie factory.
Being the "beacon of freedom" is a position we are loseing quickly. Our actions and policies are not working. The current constitution is flawed in that it was written a very long time ago and is being used to destroy our country with. If you do research you will see that "amendments" and tweeks have been made. These tweaks have done nothing positive for the people. I think we absolutlely need to update our constitution, my fear is that the two parties running the show will use this as a way to further take away our rights and the current vicegrip lock they have on us and the way they have lulled us to sleep will help nothing but further their agenda. We have to awake as a nation and rise above this. We have to look at the situation we are in. Why does the person who raises the most money get to be president.. or at least get a better chance then those without the funding. To me the funding prooves they are funded by people with agenda. Their nomination and time in office are plain and simply to better the situation of the wealthy that have put them in the position they are in. I belive we need to go through our government systems and put term limits where they are not present. We need to allocate money to everyone who is a viable candidate for teir elected office. Nooone shold be allowed to have more TV or air time then anyone else. These postions were created for the avarage American to hold.. do their time as a civil servant and then return to life as a normal person. It has turned into a good old boys club. Where the people whio are there to further the agenda of the people who paid the money to get them elected are the ones that are being taken care of instead of the avg tax payer. Until we end this and revamp our government i fear that any changes to out current constitution would be used to spin wording in that would allow them even more power that cannot be challenged. So in the end. YES i think we need to update this missions statement.. but i dont think we can do that until we break the current form of government down and get rid of the corruption.
I believe the Constitution needs revision...some permanent..some temporary. We need to abolish the electorial voting system that may have been useful in the Pony Express era. Our voting should be by popular vote., and popular vote only. The Federal Government needs to keep it's face out of the State Government...this is the basic idea of even having separate State Government. I have lived in several states; believe me..each state is individual to it's own needs.
Maybe, just maybe, we don't need the Feds telling our states what to spend on and how high to jump..We could actually have a system where the states trade amongst themselves; thereby becoming more self sufficient, and less reliant on the Feds. The Feds could worry about pertecting our boarders, and keeping terrorists at bay.
Our country needs cleaning up; perhaps closing the borders to new aliens would help clean up the medicare mess that has transpired. I have paid into this system for 42 years; it is my money and it should be available to me at 62; not 65; not 70! I did not approve our government's dipping into my money. Why can they? Perhaps it is time to move toward a tax revolution... to begin with!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Zakaria needs to learn why there only 17 changes in 220 years. He totally mis understands why this is a nation of laws ( imperfect at best, ) and NOT OF MEN.
He should try out some of the "nations" subject to the tyranny and inhumanity of leaders in the 110 countries I have visited.
In the USA worst days ( aliensedition,Japanese interment, etc etc) we finally got it right because of that document, the oldest in humanity's world. ) Think about it.
The law you support will not really matter one way or the other. They already ignore the people so why not change the system maybe it will be cheaper
Thanks for bringing the link to the webside.
While the Electoral framwork of the reform has it merrits in the political situation of the country, it still upholdes us in the trancated democracy: US citizens livinig within US jurisdiction but outside the state framework ( US-Vegin Island, Porto Rico, Guam, etc) will be excludede form election.
The state gvts have proven they are morons. Life and death should NOT be left up to state governments, that includes health care.
Yeah because it's not like some of the States aren't ahead of curve then others on healthcare, education or prison reform, oh wait they aren't.
And no, we should still have the electoral college. The small states already in comparison, don't have much power. Simply turning the president into a majority vote installs mob rule and simply gets rid of any meaning to smaller states.
It's time that the public had some sort of immediate redress against what career politicians have done to our political and law-making processes.
A Constitutional Amendment to allow public propositions (similar to California law) to introduce and allow a popular vote on legislation would change this. To avoid the flurry of lawyers blocking the results, the subject of the referendum would have to be constitutionality-tested by a higher US court before going to the ballot box.
To become law, the proposition would have to pass a tough test - say 2/3 or 3/4 of voters (or possibly registered voters) in the US (or possibly in each state) would have to approve it. This would help prevent any one majority group from targeting legislation against a minority group.
Ken K,
We all see how good the referendum system works in California, quite possibly the most broken of the 50 state governements.
I was about to say, I think I may be more comfortable with corrupt politicians than with ignorant voters...
Now that is an idea I'd like to see. Its time for the people to have the ability to propose ideas to the federal gvt and bipass the state completely. Right now we don't. We can send a letter or email to the state gvt and it will just be totally ignored in favor of whoever has the money.
There is a nearly immediate redress.. It's called elections every 2, 4 and 6 years.. You can't just recall every politician because they do something you don't like. Do research before voting in the first place.
Now i do agree that americans should be aloud to voice their thoughts in government without having to hope for a represientive to. I have always liked direct democracy more then representive. But if americans are aloud to prepose something to be voted on in to law then i do believe a good amount of americans need to be behind this act. I am think 3% to 5% precent of all registered voters need to sign a petition before it is even going to be voted on nationally. That is roughly 9 to 15 million people. It could go higher but i do believe that americans should be able to prepose legislation. I do not believe they should be able to vote out a congressmen or congresswomen or the president. That should happen at their respective re election.
As an "advisor" to the President, you, Mr. Zakaria should be at least remotely educated about our Republic before you make such uninformed arguments. We are not Iceland, Mr. Zakaria, and if you believe that we should take our lead from them, perhaps you and Barry can go live there and help them realize your utopian socialist society.
Our political representatives in Washington seem to consider holding on to their job as their highest priority. This does not bode well for their constituents or the country. Big money donations becomes a factor in decision making. Saying anthing to get reelected is commonplace including twisting the truth and flip flopping on issues. Primarily because job retention is all important, Congress has become disfunctional. To counter this sorry situation, Americans might want to consider an amendment to the Constitution setting term limits. The number of terms would be open for debate, but the idea is to eliminate the life tenure concept . Perhaps then we can have dedicated representatives whose primary concern is the welfare of their constituents and their country.
Agreed! Term limits for all elected officials. And elimination of corporate campaign donations too.
I completely agree with rick house. Fareed Zakaria lacks understanding of the founding document and is not in an educated informed position to suggest it be changed.
that document is the greatest document ever created by man. throwing it away and starting anew would actually violate the constitution anyway and would be tossed by the supreme court. the constitution can be amended, it can not be wholly discarded.
Wait, really? The greatest document ever created by man? A couple thousand years of history, and the constitution of fairly young country is the greatest document? Really? Come on.
No, I think he understands exactly how our government is defined. You must remember the Mr. Zakaria is an advisor to Obama and probably sees the Constitution in the same light as Obama, a detriment to creating the "perfect society" and the only thing between them and their great society is that pesky little outdated document.
The Federal Government needs to be put back in its place. It should exist to protect the interestes of the American people, not exist by exploiting the American people.
The reason we can't do the same thing as Iceland is we don't have a tradition of civil discussion in the U.S. Go to any thread on CNN and will see what I mean. It is a series of unsubstantiated self-righteous posts that are the equivalent of trying to shout each other down. And that is just the story about recycling soap for use in Africa. If you go to the politics or religious sections it gets really nasty.
You know this is my first time looking at this post and your right, much of this is ridiculous even comical. However if you read or spend some time on it carefully you find the occasional thoughtful even informative comment. I checked out the Popular Vote Bill in one of the posts above and it looks good. Perhaps CNN should divide up the comment section into much smaller (5 – 7) very specific questions, this could help guide the questions a little more. I taught Government for a semester, so I'm very glad he raised the public awareness with this, but it should go much further. Dialogues like this take a series of programs looking at it from multiple angles, levels and legitimate opinions. To do this justice, Zakaria should really focus on a much broader, longer term series like "American Government in the 21st Century"
The constitution has already had so many "amendments" already, why not just more "amendments". Never mind the fact that most of the previous "amendments" were back door opportunities for the rich & powerful to become more so. Why don't we just let DOW Chemical, DuPont, Exxon & Bank of America write the new one for us so we can save some time. We might as well since they will now be buying all our "public servants" with each new "election".
In Practice – this what the Major (campaign funders / Lobbysts) corporations Have been doing for my entire adult life!
The current crop of (and I use this term loosely) "leaders" have all but shredded it already. Those that would see liberty dead become more open and embolden about their intentions daily, don't they Zakaria?
Change the Constitution The document that gives us our freedom.... H_ll No, bad idea!
it has been changed 27 times already, in case you didn't know it.
The Constitution does not give you your freedom. You are endowed with unalienable rights from your creator. The Constitution is supposed to require the goverment to uphold those rights that you are born with.
The constitution doesn't 'give' us our freedom, and the founders all knew that. The constitution was to limit the power of the government and create the framework to function, and including the Bill of Rights was very contentious because they didn't want to to be perceived as a finite list of rights, but rather a subset of unwritten rights we all already possess.
That's why I find arguments like 'there's no right to same-sex marriage in the constitution' absurd — we do not derive our rights from this piece of paper (nor base our secular laws on sacred texts), but contemporary Americans are ignorant of this fact.
@Rick House
Bravo! I stopped reading Mr. Zakaria's article as soon as I read his Senate comment. Is it any wonder, with this degree of civic misunderstanding, that our nation is in decline?
The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.
----
You might also point out that California has more representation in the HOUSE because many of its 36 million people are NOT citizens, but illegal aliens. Now, an amendment that doesn't base representation on population but CITIZENS I can go for. And that limits citizenry to those born to at least one citizen parent.
California is actually under-represented in the house of representatives because a LOT of people (I think it was half a million or something large like that) weren't counted in the last census. The data for the census is from itself, and the data that shows there is a shortfall is from the tax collecting part of California's government. So ignoring the whole illegal immigrant thing, not even all of the tax payers in California are even being counted in the house. problems abound!
If you want to revise the constitution, there is already a process in place. It is called adding an amendment.
I seem to agree with everyone, why change what has been so brutally ignored. Is it too much to ask for an amendment by which the Legislative branch of our government can not excluded themselves or their family from any laws they pass.
I love how Zakaria see's the lack of flushing toilets, the size of the room, and the lack of a cotton gin as relevant to the need to reform the constitution. Bravo. That's some real fine logic.
The only change I would support would be term limits not to exceed the President's maximum term limit of two terms on all Senator's and Congressmen/women, and the Supreme Court Justices instead of life appointments, more like 10 or 12 year appointment.
If the two best example you can come up with are the electoral college and the Senate you have a long way to go on coming up with a convincing argument.
If you want a system that is more democratic why not just go all the way and bring our "democracy" into the modern era and have all laws voted on by the populous online ... (which is a horrible idea).
Given Zakaraia is "in the tank" for Obama, as a consultant, it is not surprising that he implies we should change the Electoral college, given he wants to win the next election by popular vote, by granting amnesty to 20+million illegals, thus "buying" their popular vote. Unfortunately, the majority of those he will buy, live in predominantly 3 states; thus his highly slanted reasoning for wanting revisions to the electoral college and the Senate. He must be worried about the next election, in order to try to get a "FIX" in early with this absurd commentary. I say NO, and if ANYTHING gets revised, it is to deport Zackaraia.
News pundits should be counted as 3/5 of a person.
Access to free healthcare (like every other modern nation in the world), campaign finance reform (a corporation is not equal to an individual), legalize marijuana (its less detrimental to society then alcohol and we could use the tax revenue). I do have to agree with Rick, your position on the senate is completely backwards and the electoral college is an outdated method for electing the highest ranking government official.
Sorry but I stopped reading after one man one vote comment on the senate. You lost credibility by not understanding the point of having two seperate houses. If it was not for the equal respresnation of the states, the country would be running on laws passed by CA and NY.
Rick House hit the nail on the head as well.
If combined population of CA and NY is more than other 48 states, then why not? I am tired of money being spent on smaller states on projects that help very few people. Remember Bridge to Nowhere?
I'm tired of people saying we should rewrite the constitution. The document is fine, it's people's efforts to undermine and circumvent it that makes it seem outmoded. Besides, in today's climate it would spark turmoil and civil war if such an initiative occured.
That is what the intention is... to spark civil war. The outside infiltrators know that as long as we remain civil, they can not take final control, so they continue to attack us from within.
No, its not. Things like abortion, the rights to ones own body, and sexual orientation were not issues when this was written. THOSE need to become protected statuses. The reason for the electoral college no longer matters, its an antiquated system that needs to go away. This is not up for discussion.
Not to mention that something needs to be done about this idiotic and insane idea that corporations should EVER be able to donate ANY amount of money to any campaign, incumbent, or frankly any political agenda whatsoever... Corporations are NOT people. And the people that run them will pretty much always vote for whatever makes them the most money.
And thats just to start. Enough is enough. There are alot of things that need to be added, and some things that need to be taken away.
IAfraid I have to agree with Rick House. I wasn't the best history student in school, but even I understood the reasoning behind our bicameral legislature. To speak only about the Senate w/o simultaneously mentioning the House of Representatives is either disingenuous or misinformed. Bills need approval in BOTH houses to pass.
That does have a slowing effect on civil rights legislation (because even when there is majority support behind civil rights nationally, often smaller rural states are able to block it), but the courts have (at least until recently) been a good workaround.
A constitution is not a list of things people want to get or want to outlaw.
It is a design for how such laws and rules will be established over time.
Article V of our Constitution makes provision for the people to amend it through 2/3 of the states petitioning for a convention. We need to this and I would suggest three amendments: 1. Balance budget amendment that only allows deficit spending upon 2/3 majority vote of congress. 2. Direct election of Supreme Court justices for six year terms with 1/3 up for election every two years. 3. Freedom of Commerce amendment that explicitedly forbad Congress from mandating that we purchase anything.
Michael,
While I agree with you on point 1 about Article 5, you seem to miss the point in the Constitution about the Supreme Court. Part of the problem is the perpetual election cycle we are in, with representitives being elected every other year, they are constantly campaigning instead of working on solutions. the reason the SC has lifetime appointments is to remove them from elections, the idea being it allows them to think thuroughly on topics and make decisions without having to beg for money from industreis or other special interests to get reelected. it's to keep them from being just another politician in the back pocket of those with money and influence.
Floyd, I understand the goal was to keep the court from being politicized. Unfortunately, they are politicized in the worst posslbe way. Each party pays back political favors by appointing extreme liberal or ultra conversative judges. Judges do not represent the mainstream of American values. By electing only 3 judges every two years, we would, over time, end up with a court that is mainstream.
No, no, the Perpetual Election Cycle as you put it is a recent phenomena, we know every 2 years was fine. Once incumbents are in anyway, especially after a period of several elections cycles, the usually get reelected barring major events like Wiener. They also do a much better job of representing the needs of their district after a few years. It is hard to get freshmen elected in highly competitive districts, and there are oddities like representatives living outside their district or "planting" themselves to get a party seat, and things which need to be fixed I can't think of right now. These are fixed in terms of laws not amendments. If you have a problem with representative terms look at the President, some have called for one six year term instead of 2 eight year terms. Terms are also designed to keep representatives competitive.
If it isn't broken....DONT FIX IT!!!
yess agreed
And all this time I thought the ancient Greeks were credited with developing the first representative government. Thanks for the history lesson Mr. Z., now we all know that the rocky ledge on which the Althing gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world. When will the history books be re-written to satisfy your world view?
I can't imagine what the religious zealots would try to stick in there. Better to leave it alone even though it does need to be brought up to date
"one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history."
i think its also one of the most logically sound as well.
...so we should change it?
oh wait... you just wrote this for shock value... my bad.
Dear God no....Have you seen the people that are running are country nowadays? They're way less qualified to be writing any kind of insanely important document like the Constitution than the founders were. The founders were reasoned, smart individuals. The people we have running our country today are more like ADD children. Heck they can barely even get the laws right much less the fundamental principles of a country. Leave it how it is.
that's why we need to do it online, so regular people can give their input and participate in the process
Typical Progressive mentality in which we have "moved beyond" the Constitution. What they don't like about that document is the fact that the government's power is given to it by the people and is limited. Obama himself, in years prior to his election, said that "the Constitution is basically a documents of what the government can't do to you rather than what it should do for you". Thus a reason for the Progressive's Second Bill of Rights during the early 20th century.
Fareed is showing his ignorance of basic civics. The framework we have today is intended as Rick stated: to prevent the largest states from dictating everything. The electoral college is actually pretty ingenious idea, but not well enough understood. If it didn't exist we'd just wait for 5 states to vote and the rest of us should just stay home. Rather, states like RI and WV have a chance to have is relevant say in our future.
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states - that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
1. Define "person" as beginning at conception.
2. Limit term of all Federal Judges to 8 years + provide the states with an easy method to overrule Supreme court with a majority.
3. Get rid of Electoral College vote.
4. Allow health insurance companies to compete over state lines so that the rates lower through competition.
5. Outlaw lobbiests.
6. Make it illegal to attach irrelavent bullets to new bills that are passed and erase all those that have already been passed. 1 bill 1 concept.
The ability for Insurance companies to sell across state lines is IN THE Health Care BILL!!! Read Section 1333, and stop listening to the uninformed.
The problem is that after this comment storm nothing's gonna stick and nothing's gonna change. Brilliant ideas will get forgotten in five minutes by everyone, including the authors. Kenichi Omae told me it's not ideas that we lack, it's the politicians to bring them to life. And that will always be so, unless WE learn to act on them. What if WE could pull up a law and draft a bill and vote for it right now? lawdelta.org
5. Don't let Billy vote or hold office because he's an idiot.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not flawed, our current political leadership is flawed. When our political leaders try to subvert the laws and Constitution and Bill of Rights by having the Courts make politically correct rulings they are basically sidestepping the intent of the basic laws. As an example the latest Walmart ruling by the Supreme Court saying that the Class Action request was to large. What kind of nonsince is that? If you remember that the latest S.C. Justices have been appointed by Presidents with agenda's. That should be stopped and the Supreme Court Justices put up for election by the American Public, just as the legislators are but for terms of 10 to 12 years maximum.
I would love to find a way to get rid of the two party system and install term limits. No more lifetime career politicians. Let Americans be represented by Americans and not by corporate lap dogs (both parties are guilty). I would keep the 2/3 majority to make any changes. I would also change the way the supreme court is chosen and make it less political, maybe have those members elected like every other branch of government is, by the people. 1st and 2nd amendment needs a little work. Some ammendments don't make any sense anymore (I'm not worried about having to quarter any soilder). It would have to be scrapped and started anew to work. A good majority of those who swear by the document have never read it and have no idea what's in it, start new and let the people create something that works for now and for decades to come.
Yes, change the constitution. Strip the American people of those pesky things like Freedom of speech and the ability to defend themselves so that the all knowing/all powerful federal government can control them completely. The Land of the Free needs to become The Land of the Submissive!
... or it could give people more rights that they have in the current constitution. No harm in trying.
When I read over "The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic. . ." I couldn't help but wonder if you are aware that we are actually a Constitutional Republic. We do always talk about democracy and you can be a democratic republic, but I feel like a lot of people forget the fact that the United States is a Constitutional Republic. Rick touched on a reason why we are this way, it is to help prevent the "tyranny of the majority."
I personally have a problem specifically with our two-party system. It seems they are more focused on getting elected and re-elected than doing anything helpful or why we vote them in.
More than ever, I believe we need a balanced budget amendment. This is what I believe is a structural flaw in the Constitution that assumes representatives of the people will not request government services that go beyond our means, which is exactly what has happened. After all, I'm not convinced many would argue that their representative is the reason for the debt – that school/bridge/contract was "necessary". Without a structural limitation in place to limit this excess, we the people will continually engage in this behavior and if our representatives want to continue to be elected, they will oblige. For instance, would Senator Murray or Cantwell in Washington State every vote against a budget bill that takes money or a contract from Boeing?
While the issues with such an idea are large, like requiring a balanced budget with our current deficit, I believe a phased approach to balancing the budget by law and only allowing for a budget deficit by a 2/3rds vote would be sufficient to structurally control our excesses – or at least figure out how to pay for them.
Some fair points, some not so fair. the Senate is the way it is because of the Connecticut Compromise. Originally those in Virginia wanted a Unicameral legislature made up of only what we now know as the House of Representatives. However, those in smaller states, namely NJ did not want the larger states basically dictating all the laws of the land. The favored just the house we now know as the Senate. However, they compromised, and took both. It added checks and balances, meant larger states would still have more representatives over all however could not dictate to the smaller states. It was a good plan, leave it alone. Without the electoral college likewise, Presidential candidates would never even bother visiting a state like Iowa for instance. However, because the setup allows for smaller states to become crucial in elections, it forces candidates to prove themselves and introduce themselves to the populations of smaller states. We should not pull and Iceland and redo everything. That's why the founders gave us the ability to AMEND the constitution. However, we don't follow that process as we should. Instead, either judges apply their own feelings to change laws or the legislature either at the state or local level just ignore the document. We need to clarify the role of the judiciary. When Marbury v Madison occurred and the Supreme Court gave themselves the power of judicial review, Jefferson was furious. He and the other framers had never intended the court to have that power. Sometimes, that power has been good for America and sometimes it has not. Point is though, we need to decide as a nation if we want to give the courts that power and if so we need to Amend the Constitution to do so. Finally, I would, in less harsh terms, agree with the poster to called Zakaria a globalist. I am all about free trade, however I am against this notion that international laws should be dictated to us. I would be against ever joining an EU type organization. America, like every nation has a unique set of ideals and to preserve these ideals we must always retain 100% of our national sovereignty.
The purpose of the electoral college is to help ensure that all states get a fair say in government. Yes, it allows someone to become president without a majority of voters, but it also prevents the urban portions of each state from trivializing the rural portions. Without the electoral college, the only votes that would actually matter would be the ones in the big cities.
As for the Senate, it was NEVER meant to be popularly elected. For over half of this nation's existence, the Senate was appointed by the state governments. It served as a balance against the House of Representatives. The House would represent the will of the people while the Senate would represent the will of the states. In this manner, the people couldn't force through programs that would serve to impoverish the states while the states couldn't do anything that took power away from the people. One of the biggest mistakes our nation ever made was when we amended the Constitution to change that dynamic and appoint senators through popular vote. This had the effect of turning the Senate into a second House of Representatives. Is it any wonder that 90 years later we're wondering what happened to state sovereignty?
The truth of the matter is that the majority of this nations problems come from the fact that we've trivialized and marginalized the Constitution to a point where it only receives lip service by politicians. We were meant to be a federal government but instead have become a national government - against the express warnings of those who drafted the Constitution in the first place.
Perhaps rather than rewriting the Constitution we would be better served by actually going back to it!
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. A "big city" only campaign would not win.
We should certainly update the constitution. Certian things that applied when it was written don't apply any more, such as the right to bear arms. This was written so that the people would not be powerless against a corrupt government. It's the same as trying to apply the Bible to modern day – sure there are some values in there that should be held, but a lot of them are outdated.
Removing or changing the right to bear arms is easy. It simply requires an amendment that nullifies the 2nd Amendment. (In much the same way that the 18th Amendment instituted prohibition and the 23rd nullified it. The only reason this has not been done is because those who support gun control know that they could never get the national support required to pass an amendment.
This holds true for every potion of the Constitution. It is all subject to amendment - but to pass an amendment you need a majority of national support.
The effect of this is twofold. First, anyone attempting to nullify any part of the Constitution through legislation rather than an amendment is effectively breaking the law. Second, he or she is deliberately attempting to force the will of the minority onto the majority.
"This was written so that the people would not be powerless against a corrupt government" Wow...so are you saying that goverment corruption has ended? Also, that wasn't the intent of the second amendment. It's the last resort of the people to protect themselves from tyranny. As abosute power corrupts absolutely, tyranny and governement go hand in hand and that will never change and is as relevant today as it was in the founding father's day and will be relevant long into the future. It's frighenting how naive people have become. Good luck in your future roles as economic serfs and slaves to the state.
Can you imagine if they tried this in the U.SS.?
Article 1 Section 2
If you are single lonely man seeking to meet a young wealthy woman half your age go to
Article 1 Section 3
I have started a new blog. Come visit my blog at
Article 1 Section 4
Do you know where to get blue ray players, ipods, and flat screen TVs for half price? Just copy and paste my name into your browser.
1. I would get rid of the electoral college and have the president elected by popular vote.
2. I would codify that only a born human being is a person with constitutional rights. Neither the unborn or a corporation can have any implicit constitutional rights.
3. I would allow foreign born citizens in the country for more than 35 years to have right to run for President. If it requires 35 year of American-ness to be president then a foreign born completing that period should qualify.
4. I would codify civil unions between any two adults as a contract that mist be honored Federally and statewide and leave marriage a religious issue.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
@ oldgulph thats a lie
Kirk – What is a lie?
The u.s. constitution is overall a ridiculous and vaguely stated document. It must be fully scrapped and fully rewritten for a nation existing in 2011 not 1811. I currently live in South Korea and have read their Constitution. It is written plainly and clearly with each point clearly and fully explained in the modern style. The electoral college and the Senate are both laughing stocks and not needed. On House of Representatives is all that is needed as is in effect in many democracies. Furthermore the constitution must be written in a style in which there is little or no room available for interpretation by the courts. The Second Amendment? Who needs a gun in their house? Is this the wild west, are some Native American or some Buffalo going to storm through your door at any minute? Give me a break.
Mark,
Thank you for thoughts, do us a favor and stay in South Korea and take Zakaria with you.
Mark,
By your statement I'm led to believe you are still in high school. Enjoy College and your 20's!
The Constitution was made with the idea that it could be modified. So to that point I agree. But I do not agree with any of the amendments that you put forth in this article. Rick House's comment above is very good, and if we are going to make the senate be based on population then there is no point to even keep it there because it would just be redundant with the House of Reps. And as far as Iceland goes, I hope they don't ever do some of those things here. If our government ever mandates stealing (i.e. nationalized healthcare) in our Constitution, I might have to look for a new country to live in. Our country was once Libertarian in nature. The structure of the government was intended to protect individual liberty, not democracy and the will of the masses being imposed on people at the expense of their freedoms.
The Fouding Fathers devised the House as a population-based representation and the Senate as a state-based representation so that smaller states wouldn't get steamrollered by larger ones. It's actually not a bad system, and it's hard to argue that it's not working. To throw out something that works in favor of the author's dognatic insistence on his interpretation of "one person, one vote" is foolish.
One problem with your arument, it doesn't apply. The power of the states was stripped away in 1913. Both the House and the Senate are occupied by popular vote politicians. The check and balance system was broken by the 17 amendment. Proof that revising the Constitution isn't always a good idea. Something that sounds good, may really have a sinister plan behind it.
Would someone please tell this uneducated moron that the United States is a republic, not a democracy!! Send this foreign national to school for a little education!
He's not as much a moron as an enemy within. This article is just a means of measuring reaction. Thank G_d most peoples responses appear to recognize this for what it is... a very bad idea.
Jack, the left refuses to use the word "Republic", for fear of having to explain it.
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). Nothing said here would change us to a pure democracy.
A republic is a nation that has a non-inheritance based process for determining its head of state. It has nothing to do whether the choosing is done broadly or by some kind of elite. Consequently North Korea and the United States are both republics. The United Kingdom is not a republic. A democracy typically has a process for broad spectrum of adult citizens determining the leaders below head of state. Consequently UK is a democratic non-republic and another non-republic Saudi Arabia is not. People ranting on blogs have somehow defined a democracy as only when everyone votes on everything. What school awarded you your degree? Get a dictionary.
@Mike
"A republic is a nation that has a non-inheritance based process for determining its head of state." ... "Consequently North Korea [is a republic]" Say what? NK rulers inherit their position. There is no participation by the people of that country.
Agreed that a "pure democracy" is a system where "the people" (possibly a subset of adults) discuss and vote on all matters. In practice, this is mob rule and doesn't work very well above the level of a small town (imagine just the logistics of 200M+ Americans trying to debate and vote on something!). There are various forms of democracy which can be used at larger scales, and all involve having someone represent a large number of people and speak for them, while hopefully injecting some judgment and wisdom into the process.
@Jack – you're a moron. History didn't jump from 1787 to today and the term "democracy" and "republic" likewise don't mean the same as they did then. Turn off Beck and learn a little intermittent history and watch how political concepts evolve. The terms are synonymous today as far as what the Constitution represents.
The terms have not changed their meanings. You have a type of government: democracy, oligarchy, or autocracy and the form of government: direct democracy (where public votes on laws-as with initiatives and referendum); or republic which is representative government. There are a myriad of oligarchies, rule by a few: aristocracy, rule by inherited nobility; plutocracy, rule by the wealthy; timocracy, rule by those who own land/property etc. etc etc.. And the forms of autocracy are monarchy, or dictatorship.
And there is a fourth category under type of government; anarchy or the absence of government.
Time for Zakaria to head to Iceland... one way ticket.
Of course, as you elude, the Constitutiion has been updated numerous times. But nearly all the amendments came in the first 100 years, when our country was still relatively simple. I fear that it would be nearly impossible today to amend it, as we have become so big and complex. Since amending it is difficult enough, we will never agree as a nation to replace it. Therefore, we must let it evolve. As wonderful a document as it is, it was not designed to govern 300,000,000 people and a $20T economy. Constitutional fundamentalism is a recipe for the death of the American experiment. As TR said, the Constitution was written for the people, the people don't exist for the Constitution. We should not subordinate ourselves to it.
This article, written by a foreign born naturalized citizen, shows an utter lacking of what the United States of America represents and how it was formed. This article is permeated' by assumptions native to his Indian homeland and forged in his elite Ivy League (Yale and Harvard) educated mind. It shows a lack of appreciation of American traditions, but rather the 'I know what is better for you than you you do' mindset of 'elite' thinkers like the author.
This would be like me discussing Islamic law and theology with his father.
He is an educated person. He just suggesting the idea because Iceland did this, his goal is not to change the constitution
I don't see a problem with the allotment of two Senators per state simply because all states have a fair allotment of Representatives based on population in the House. Where I do see a major problem is in our politicians being bought and paid for by special interests, which usurps the voting power of individuals and the will of the majority of the voters. Accordingly, the two amendments that I would propose would take some of the corruption out of our system. The first is term limits with no member of Congress being permitted to serve more than 12 years, which would insure an influx of fresh ideas and a breakdown in "the old boys network." This should also allow us to do away with all the ridiculous retirement benefits and other perks that we give to Congressmen and insure that they are in Congress to serve the people and not themselves. My second amendment would prohibit any form of campaign contributions and make all federal campaigns publically financed. Thus, all those running for Senate would be alloted a certain amout, say $1,000,000 and someone running for a House Seat would get another amount, say $500,000. This would eliminate bought and paid for politicians and level the playing field so that we would be sure that we are electing politicians based on their merits and not the fact that they have the ability to raise more money than the other guy. I know you wanted three proposals, but if these two were passed, then we could have politicians in power that were worried about the public's interest instead of their own figure out the third amendment.
Nevermind Wisconsin – what about the fact that the 563,626 residents of Wyoming get two Senators and a House member while the 601,723 residents of DC get *one* non-voting delegate?
Fareed must have been out of the classroom when they taught Civics 101. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. The structure of the House and Senate, and the creation of the Electoral College are designed to preserve State's rights. Indeed, members of the Senate were to be selected by each State's legislature, not by popular vote. The College serves to protect the small states from the larger ones. These are the fundamental concepts that formed our Republic. Ben Franklin feared that we would not keep it; his fears now seem well founded.
The presidential election system we have today is NOT in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The purpose of the Consitution was not to limit the Federal Government but strengtehn it over against the States. It seems to be a common misunderstanding these days. The delegates to the Consitutional Convention were charged with revising the Articles of Confederation which as the name confederation implies, gave more pwoer to the states then to the Federal Government. This confederation made it impossible to function as a single nation so the delegates decided to junk the Articles and write a Constitution that made the Federal Government more powerful than the states with regard those issues wherein they believed a decision by a central government would best serve a single nation. The argument about states rights and the rights of the federal authority is what makes up the political history of our nation. To get the Constitution passed the Bill of Rights including the tenth amendment was added. But the tenth amendment has to be interpreted in light of Article VI section 2-the supremacy clause wherein the constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it are the surpeme law of the land and..."anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." We even fought a Civil War over the idea that we should be a confederacy and not a federal system. But the federal system prevails because of the common sense of the founders that to be a nation you need to have a single identity and not thirteen or fifty.
A unicameral legislature, such as Nebraska's government, would be a good way to reduce gridlock and make legislators more accountable to the people.
Reintroducing restrictions on the executive branch and limiting the scope of the judicial branch would also make people feel was more accountable to them.
Introducing a national referendum would be a powerful way to allow for popular participation.
+1 on Rick House's explanation for why the Senate exists, and we have a bicameral assembly (House and Senate). I would add that the House principally controls financial matters (they must originate there) because more populous states would be taxed more (due to larger population) and thus deserve more representation.
As for the wisdom of having an Electoral College rather than direct vote by the populace, recall that our Founding Fathers feared the mob mentality of the common man. Even after restricting voting rights to landed white men, they still had the states select their Senators. Again, the intent of the Electoral system was to prevent mob rule by somewhat insulating the process from the common man. Whether that is still justified today (look at how many voters support extremist right wingnuts), something still smells bad about it (i.e., that a massive popular vote winner could still lose the election).
If I were updating the Constitution, I would outlaw primaries and go to a "instant runoff" multiple vote system. While I'm at it, I might ban political parties, or at least require them to dissolve after 50 years or so. Our duopoly of Republicrats is ruining the country. They are only interested in holding power and patronage, not in what's best for the country. Perhaps there are other ways to suppress out of control parties in a fair and consistent manner?
If our government truly represented us, and worked for we the people, perhaps there would be far less support for extremist nutjobs? Voters are increasingly frustrated and supporting the fringes in hopes of getting something done.
There are provisions in the constitution that provide for amending the document. Let's not let a flash mob decide how to change the constitution.
Typical liberal logic. They can't get what they want under the current system so they want to throw it out and build something friendlier to their big government philosophy.
Typical Daveilist why think about how we can use our collective political will to make better lives for ourselves and our children?
I agree! New York population (19 millon people) vs. say Whoming (545,000 people). Yet there is equal representation in the senate? The system worked when we are a FAR smaller country, not now where these states lines were drawn arbitrarily, and many senators are basically representing tumbleweeds or cactus instead of reprenting the true will of the people.
Outside of the Bible the UNITED STATES constitution is the single greatest document on planet earth. DONT TOUCH IT!!! i DONT TRUST, either party to modify it in a way that best serves Americans!!!Our constitution is our unique identity...the notion of even altering could send this nation into a War!!! Trust me DONT TOUCH IT!!!
Rick house, I agree. A bit of research would help.
Why the focus on things being more democratic? A pure democracy is guaranteed to stomp on the rights/needs of minorities and underrepresented. We are, and always have been, a representative democracy. The electoral college and senate setup is necessary to give voice to smaller states who's needs/rights woudl be trampled by those of the larger states otherwise.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
I see a lot of "we want free health care" more beneifts, more entitlements. Why, who is going to pay for it, the tax payers. Why should the tax payers pay for something you can pay for yourself? Cut these federally funded free this or that, benefits, and entitlements programs with justification's at a minimum of every two years, decrease benefits or entitlements over a justified period, put people back to work, decrease government intervention, and anyone on a free federally funded program, benefit program, or entitlement program must submit an application, justification, and drug free test and be randomly tested for drugs to prove they are eligable for employment and futher consideration for these programs. One positive test for durgs and the person is on a 30 day suspension, unless it is a doctor authorized drug, and a second positive test is life revocation of any federal job or entitlement.
The Constitution also had 3 genetic defects. Drawn by 55 wealthy white men. 17 of whom owned slaves, these defects are not surprising. African Americans , women and children were excluded. See the Dred Scot decision.Subsequent Amendments have addressed the first two defects , although no ERA. Children are still not there. Unless they live in Montana, the only State that specifically protects children in its Constitution. Charles
I suggest we revise the Constitution because the outcome would be HILARIOUS! I can't even imagine.
the answer is NO.....what we need is..to go BACK to the forgotten constitution.....the one we don't remember....it was great then and it is great now. our country just forgot what it is!
example...the electoral college had and has a purpose....because people don't understand it..not a good reason to get rid of it!
an anti-liberal ammendment would be great
The forgotton constitution as you want it never existed.
How about "Government shall not borrow money, issue bonds, or print extra currency except in national emergency. All normal spending shall proceed from collection of taxes".
And Taxes shall not exceed 10% of an individuals earned income !
Bob: But let taxes be up to 90% of unearned income.
Sure, and Congress and the President would declare our debt to be a national emergency, allowing them to borrow and print currency.
Now that corporations are nearly considered citizens they can re-write the constitution for the rest of us.
Does anyone even read this swill or do they just mouth off?
I mouth off.
Proposed New Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The new amendment to the Constitution now states the United States of America is now a Secular Nation. Any and all references to any religion or to the bible or the 10 commandments are to be removed from all government buildings. There will be no praying or religious services of any kind on any government property including the military. There will be no religion taught in any public or government schools and “intelligent design” will not be taught, only scientific facts. There will be no invocations at any government meetings at any level. No religious icons are allowed in any branch of the government. The national day of prayer will be abolished; “in god we trust” will be removed from all currency and “under god” will be removed from the pledge of allegiance. Absolutely no Christmas decorations on government property. This amendment clarifies once and for all that there is 100% separation of State and church. There are no exceptions. The United States government is not a Christian Nation and this amendment states the government is not in the business of religion and is and will remain 100% secular.
If only.....
Get over it. The constitiution provides for freedom of religion, not from religion. If a good idea (things like thou shall not kill, or steal or ...) has foundation in religion we should ignore it because it's religious? Grow up. You're lifestyle and freedoms been crimped one bit because you live in a Judeo-Christian based society? has the Bible been cited as precedent for any legal decisions handed down by the SCOTUS? Been forced to worship God or any gods by the government?
Sounds like heaven!
NO !!!
What we need are politicians and a Government that actually adhere to the Constitution !
Enough of this BS where the elite few think that if we would just do what they want, their way that our society would be better off. Our framers thought things out and laid out a decent roadmap that would prevent our government from taking too many abuses.
To say: "For example, the power of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is barely mentioned in the document. This grew as a fact over history" is inaccurate and disingenuous. The entire third article outlines the judiciary, and the decision of Marbury v. Madison, which stated clearly what the constitution implied but left somewhat vague, that the Supreme Court would have the power to overturn acts of the other branches as unconstitutional, was decided in 1803.
Certainly not. By far the greatest strength of the Constitution is the fact that it removes certain extremely important things from the possibility of government interference (e.g. speech, press, religious practice, religious establishment, etc.) and therefore removes them from the domain of the mob. A gimmicky "social media" constitution would by definition require that these protections be stripped away, at least during the framing process itself. The right to free speech would need to be voted on, for instance, as would many other important provisions. There would be a strong likelihood that the notion of a separation of church and state would fail, and indeed that it would be replaced with some explicit "Christian nation" babble. The right to free speech would probably face some sort of revision forbidding "offensive" or "hateful" speech, as is common in Western Europe–a clear nullification of the entire concept of free speech. Many other important provisions would be damaged through clumsy revisions or eliminated altogether.
The fact of the matter is that constitutions are far too important to be subjected to anything like a popular vote–indeed, the whole point of a constitution (and the great achievement of the American Constitution) is to lay down ground rules that protect individual rights from majorities which would, if given the chance, violate them at will or deny them altogether. If revisions are to be made to the Constitution, let them be revisions which further limit the ability of majorities to use government to impose upon individuals–a separation of economy and state, for instance, or a separation of society and state. But leave the populist nonsense out of it.
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people"
Scary to think that a person with a program on TV does not know that this was precisely the intention. Congress has a proportional representation. The balance of power was the goal by giving two seats to each state in order to assure equality between states.
"Progressives" these days want a single, centralized state (something like Soviet Union). Just read Nicholas Kristof's article of a couple days ago where he wants US to be run in a military style. And here goes another one: this one thinks he can write a better constitution. Failed experiences of other countries which have gone in the awful direction of centralization does not sound an alarm in "progressive" heads.
What a miserable bunch! How they want a Borg Collective from Star Treck!
Do you know what a Republic is?
Dear America:
Please become beurocratically top heavy and supress your people until you are bankrupt.
Sincerely,
China.
Changes are Amendments and there is aready a process for this.
Changes I would like to see are:
No local government can write laws that violate the existing comstitution – See Chicago and Crook County and Illinois for examples
Gerrymandering should not be allowed. Redistricting cannot be done in a partisan manner – see how Illinois Democrats just redistricted as an example
Elected officials are no longer to be elected but consripted through a draft. No one can run for a position and must serve when drafted unless they have a good reason not to do so. That way these positions are seen as positions of service and not as positions of power.
Mr. Zakaria, you are a complete idiot that obviously has never read our Constitution or taken the time to truly understand it. Shame on you for composing such a piece of trash for a news agency.
Revision of the Electoral College is the only true benefit I see in starting from scratch and that is not enough to convince me. The frustrations with Congress have not come from the structure of government but have come from the people who run it. Also, we are not as homogenous as Iceland. The difference in political and social climates from states like California, Texas, and Rhode Island would cause absolute mayhem. Tell me how citizens from all three of these states are going to agree upon one constitution?
The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
D.E.M.O.C.R.A.T.S. Dumb Enough Morons Or Charactors Ranting At Those Smarter.
The USA is a union of 50 smaller nations, far too many people forget this.
Each State wants to be represented on an equal basis at some point during the process.
Too many people think America is just one big Federal Government.
Tell that to King Obama. He, being a lawyer and disbarred like his wife, does not believe in the law, undermines it, totally ignores it, and feels it is his position to actually file a law suite agianst some states that does not support his stance, never mind that they are seperate enitites as you pointed out.
I see that we have the Beck watchers contributing.
nice try guy who is apparently the manifestation of the articles of confederation. just because we call provincial territorial units states, does not make them sovereign State entities.
if anything can be learned from Ken Burns Civil War, its that we don't say the united states 'are', but rather, the united states 'is'.
moron
Mr. Zakaria, the Constitution already has a well thought through mechanism for updating it. It is Article 5 dealing with amendments. There is no way the American people will sit idly around while a bunch of leftists seek a major overhaul of the Constitution to remove the obstacles that stand in the way to creating their Marxist utopian state.
The Constitution also allows for a constitutional convention to be called. If that happens they can do what the original convention did when they dealt with the Articles of Confederation, scrap the whole thing and start again.
Easy, Rick House... The same logic that you use works the other way around just s well : Minor states can block legislation that is good for larger states and may not have much effect on smaller states. Whichever way you look at it, the Senate system grew out of the fears of the framers of the constitution, all coming from small states foresseing that larger states would exist one day as westward expansion started.
Indeed the "mob rule" was very much on the minds of the framers, hence the Electoral College, hence the various rules ( fortunately gone by now) about who could and who could not vote.. You cannot think of the US Constitution as such a socially evolved document when Universal Suffrage is denied, when women do not have a right to vote, when slavery is not forcefully adressed and condemned, when firearms possession was clearly geared to a moment in History and not meant to become the free-for-all that is has become since.. I am quite positive that the Framers ( who were so distrustfull of the uneducated mob, as they so gently put it in various letters to each other)would be aghast at knowing that over 60 million hand guns roam the country thanks to their poorly phrased 2nd Amendment. To think that Constitutions cannot evolve is to belong to an age of conservatism. To think of it as an hallowed document shows no capacity as evolving concepts along with realities. To think that the Senate system is fair is far to often to condone special politics over the common good : Tell me that no small State Senator has ever bargained his vote on a non-consequential matter (to his state) in exchange of something benefiting his state. That is not the way to run a country and that is why we have pork barrel politics. The good for the many is far too often superseded by the benefits to a few. Manipulative especially Bi-Partisanship to the extreme were not supposed to be the rule of the land.
Actually the 2nd Amendment is exactly how they wanted it. If you forgot, the founding fathers had to deal with, what they believed was tyrannical government (the U.K.), they worded the 2nd Amendment to allow for firearms to be in the hands of the common man to stop our own government from ever becoming what they fought to break away from. So in essence if we seriously followed the 2nd Amendment we would still be allowed full autos with no tax stamp, rpg's, motors, etc. to go up against our government if it ever decided to turn its back on the liberties given in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment affords us the greatest national security because what enemy really want to invade a country that has an armed populace.
Case in point: "I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto
We couldn't do this because in our current political climate we would end up with the Articles of Confederation II or a dictatorship thinly disguised as a republic. It would destroy the nation. I would argue for all its imperfections the current constitution is a better outcome.
I don't think the relatively recent and superficial interest in the Constitution exhibited by the more rabid "conservatives on the street" is a very good starting point for a major revision or overhaul of the US Constitution.
The Constitution has been horribly stretched over time, no question, from the result-oriented civil rights cases relying on the Commerce Clause as their justification, to the mystical "right to privacy" articulated in "Roe v. Wade;" it is hard to have a whole lot of sympathy for the reasoning behind these cases, even if you like the results.
Whipping up the rabble and making them believe they somehow have some deep understanding of a document which has been intepreted for over 200 years, however, is highly dangerous, and preventing decisions made by the rabble in times of high passion is among the more important safeguards intentionally incorporated into the document in the first place.
True enough that the Commerce Clause was mangled beyond recognition, though I would argue that the Tenth Amendment, reserving rights ultimately to The People, trumps states' rights. As for the "right to privacy", I think the First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments can easily be construed as implicitly conveying a "right to privacy".
The US constitution is outdated. It is a 200+ year old document that was initially meant to join 13 colonies together to create a bulwark against the overwhelming size and power of Britain. In that small room only 39 people signed a document that is now meant to govern a country that is home to four million. How can we rationally believe that a document created centuries ago could form the basis of our government now?
While the ideals of the document are the foundation of our idealistic, and core values, the details housed in the document should be revised. There is no reason for us to rely on an electoral college when the internet allows us to communicate internationally. The Electoral College was originally created to counteract the "common man" the person that could not gather all the pertinent information required to vote, with our information resources no person is burdened with the inability to learn about the votin measures. As a democracy, we expect to elect leaders to represent us, but without our individual votes counting towards the election why vote?
Pertaining to Mr. House's comments regarding the Senate, I believe that Zakaria was merely showing a problem regarding the cumulative representation of the states, not attacking the reasoning behind the document. We must beleive that the politicians and the government will follow the laws that govern the land, otherwise it is our duty to work to change the system. Those that beleive that the constitution is not being followed in it's current incarnation should be MORE adamant for it's restructuring. They should be part of the group that pushes change through, not ignoring the problem. I agree that we are seeing great incongruities regarding our constitution and our politicians, but it is our right, and duty to bring those problems to light.
That's just how I see it.
Liberty
Balanced budget amendment, term limits on the House and Senate.
Proposed additions to any USA constitution:
1. No member of Congress, or any Federal employee, shall receive any health care benefit or retirement different from those benefits available to ordinary citizens under any Federal Health Care Program or Federal Retirement Program.
2. The Federal government shall prepare and implement a 1 year program of study ("Program") to be completed by all candidates for President and Vice-President before such persons may file papers to run for such office.
3. Such Program shall includes courses on modern geography, the identity of all countries in the world, their current 3 top leaders, social customs, religious customs, and economic and military strengths and weaknesses.
4. No person may serve more than one term as President. However, to allow said President enough time to "get something done", said term shall be for (choose either 6 or 8 years). Point: Stop the constant campaigning. You were hired to do a job, not be paid to campaign. Enough already! Additiona benefit: You can do what is best for the country, even if your major supporters threaten not to support you for re-election, because there is no re-election.
Imagine that. A liberal on CNN wanting to scrap the constitution..
1. A balanced budget – only overruled by 3/4 (in Congress) vote in cases of emergency
2. A national primary held 2 months before the general election (and only one election per year)[on a Sunday]
3. Election funds must come from within the voting district and only from citizens, no corporations (limit $1,000?)
4 A national referendum(s) can only be revisited every 50 years (used when congress is at impass
Yes, the Constitution needs updating. We need to address term limits, a longer presidential term to get out of this cycle of endless campaigning and clauses to address campaign financing and the role of lobbyists. It is a fantasy that this document is holier than all, but the political capital to address these issues will be highly controversial. We are a young nation, wrapped up in symbology and ideology and the constitution is weaved into that cultural fabric. As long as our citizens remain isolationist in their view of world history and geopolitics, we will revere our founding fathers as omniscient and our constitution as untouchable. There are other great political and governmental ideas all across this earth.
Why do we have to dump the current US Constitution to write a new one? There's nothing keeping anyone from crowd-sourcing a SUGGESTION. How about 20 or 30 different independent organizations, competing to assemble the best complete, hypothetical US Constitution? Then pick one, or don't. A no-obligation exercise might yield valuable, or at least interesting results. Ready? Go.
This is just so wrong on so many levels. If you want to be European, go to Europe! We are a Federation, not a true democracy. Do away with States rights and you have one powerful central government that doesn't give a crap about 70% of the country catering instead to Chicago, NYC and LA and other very large urban areas. You ruin the fabric of what it is to be American. I think we should redefine what it is to be a journalist!
First, this article is only meant to stir up debate and make people think. By Zakaria's points and suggestions, he has accomplished this goal.
The people who discredit Zakaria for thinking his suggestions are out-of-this world, insane, ignorant, what-have-you, need to realize his suggestions not serious, just suggestions to stir debate.
Don't discredit him, one because he's smarter than us (he's a Dr., duh), or downgrade him for drawing an article that is supposed to get people to think. Be open-minded, don't attack. You're better than that.
You're a jackass. How's that for open-minded?
You are correct. Your other reply here says it all
I would like to note that those complaining about the electoral college and apportionment of votes, how those votes are allocated (winner take all or proportional) are not dictated in the Constitution but instead by state law. Maine and Nebraska are two states that award votes by the majority vote won in each congressional district. So appealing to your states would be the best way to change this voting structure instead of amending the Constitution.
You are all so funny! Keep the jokes coming!
Blaqb0x
Now that corporations are nearly considered citizens they can re-write the constitution for the rest of us.
June 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm >>>>>thanks for that me thinks the ruling that corporations are people was a direct attack on the constitution...wouldnt the corporations just love to be able to do that!
"... and every Tuesday should be free ice cream day."
NEVER!
Here are my 3 suggested amendments:
1. Ban anyone with the name Zakaria from polluting the country with useless, moronic ideas.
2. Turn CNN over to the Onion, which actually does a better job of reporting the news.
3. Force liberals and socialists to actually study history.
Whaddya think?
You couldn't actually implement #3 since the conservatives have underfunded the schools to the point they don't really teach history anymore. Where it is still on the curriculum it has been edited heavily to exclude things that may show white Americans in a bad light.
Yes, it all has to do with mo' money. Study recent history, you liberal, and you'll see that as funding for education has gone up over the past few decades (per liberal initiatives) test scores have proportionally decreased.
Or they don't have money left because teachers would rather pay less into their pensions than for little Johnny and Susie to have a book to read
There is a process to change it by amendment. I don't trust Washington to correctly spend my tax dollars, much less scrap the constitution and come up with a new one. I can only think of one currently person that even comes close to the foresight needed to come up with anything close to the current constitution.
I would be Ok with removing the Electoral College, no corp. campaign donations, Human rights start at conception (end the debate right there), make civil unions between any two adults and marriage left up to the church.
I agree with the first post. The article itself shows Zakaria's lake of knowledge on the constitution and explains many previous positions.
Nice expert, CNN.
im more concerned about what our gov would do if we gave them a chance to redo the constitution. greed, corruption, votes for favors, and the other trash elected into office is what hurts our country.... not the current constitution.
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people"
Scary to think that a person with a program on TV does not know that this was precisely the intention. Congress has a proportional representation. The balance of power was the goal by giving two seats to each state in order to assure equality between states.
"Progressives" these days want a single, centralized state (something like Soviet Union). Just read Nicholas Kristof's article of a couple days ago where he wants US to be run in a military style. And here goes another one: this one thinks he can write a better constitution. Failed experiences of other countries which have gone in the awful direction of centralization do not sound an alarm in "progressive" heads.
What a miserable bunch! Now they want a Borg Collective from Star Treck!
I would most fervently support an amendment limiting corporate freedom of speech. This would include campaign contributions and advertisements.
1) Abolish the electoral college
2) Proportional representation in the congress
3) Outlaw gerrymandering
4) Publicly funded election campaigns only – no private funds
5) Same day registration – same day vote
6) Open primaries, as a national mandate
7) Guaranteed Quality Health Care
8) The allowance of any couple or group of consenting adults, regardless of gender, to enter into a social compact in the form of a civil union
9) National Elections are National Holidays
10) The US military cannot be made to take any action of force without a formal declaration of war by the congress
I could go on, but these ten are a really good start to move the United States toward democratization.
HA! Mistaken emoticon typo!
1. Eliminate electoral college . Use popular vote .
2. Enact term limits on all public offices.
3. Enact balanced budget for Federal government .
hear, hear!
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
STUPID IDEA GO BACK TO SCHOOL MORON the whole reason for it and the senate was for state rights
It is the exclusive power of each state to change how they award their electoral votes.
The U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
States have the responsibility to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
Under the current system, which is not what the Founders used, 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. .
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
I'm glad you asked this, Mr. Fareed, because, since taking AP US History this year, I've been thinking a lot about this. I've come to a few conclusions.
1. Either restrict the amount of money that can be donated by corporations to campaigns or repeal the 17th amendment to attempt to insulate senators from monetary influences.
2. Elect presidents for 8 years and only one term to, again, insulate them from popular pressure so that the first term is not focused on winning the second term. Elect congressmen for 3 years.
3. Maintain independent treasury but appointments are made by a council of economists chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate.
4. Establish finally the fact that the constitution is not meant to be interpreted literally as it was written vaguely by the framers who, amongst themselves, often disagreed on its meaning.
5. Elect senators based on population, we are a nation, Abraham Lincoln stopped referring to the US as a union through the Civil War because, that is not what we are. We are more a nation than a union. Besides, Madison, the true architect of the Constitution, in many ways, supported this, and I believe he was right in this regard.
Basically, what I believe this would do is allow our electors to balance out the "mob" rule of democracy to make the tough decisions or unpopular ones, like another stimulus would have been unpopular, but it would have been the right choice. But what also matters is the "virtue" as many of our ancestors put it, of the republic. Simply put, it doesn't work to be an ideologue, when the facts change, so must we. To believe that the constitution should not be amended is to live in a land where the time doesn't change, our ancestors were clairvoyant savants and humans are rational, a fairy land.
I hope some of these ideas, put forward by others and myself, are taken into consideration by the public and our elected officials, the public needs to overcome its Constitution worshipping behavior and realize that a document by humans is only as perfect as its writers, which is hardly perfect at all.
Agree 100%
I bet I can guess the political ideology of your AP teacher. Were you taught these things or did you actually learn them yourself. My proof to these accusations....you only want to limit "corporate" money to political campaigns....how about also limiting "union" donations?
Thoughtful ideas worthy of discussion. yuo seem to have a greater grasp of history than many of the comments .
The electoral college was established to give respresentation to less populous areas of the country. Large metropolitan areas with higher populations have different (sometimes contrary) interests than the heartland of America. The founding fathers recognized this. This is one benefit of the electoral college. New York and Los Angeles are incapable of running the country.
This idea of "updating" the constitution by Zakaria is just an effort to desensitize Americans. It will be done. It will be done. Its just a matter of time. The first time it was signed by noble men like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. The next time it will be the Bush family, the Clintons, Obama, Rumsfeld and other Washington crooks.
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. It would no longer matter who won a state.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska - 70%, DC - 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine - 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska - 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada - 72%, New Mexico - 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island - 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont - 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. A "big city" only campaign would not win.
We have probably evolved enough to get a true democracy and get rid of the electoral college. Also the way the senate is put together should change. Instead of having 2 senators per state , let's just nation wide elect 100 senators irrespective of where they come from.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Of course we need to revise our constitution. But given that for most of the past 200 years we have lived, not with a Jeffersonian democracy or democratic republic, but with a Hamiltonian plutocracy–the richest among us run our government, not the people–I pessimistically think that there is little or no chance of any meaningful changes occurring until after the environmentally-based economic collapse now well under way proceeds much further. It seems most likely that the plutocrats in control will insist on letting nature force the needed changes on us rather than to make those badly needed changes in a more rational, less deadly way.
well said
You lack a basic understanding of American history so dont go and say that we need to revise our consitution just because Iceland is doing it. This just another example of poeple who think more power in less hands is good for America, sounds alot like Obama. It doesnt work the people vocies would not be heard but I guess that what they want to accomplish. Dorwning out the smaller popualation states influence and rights so they can get tampled so the bigger states can dictate what is going to happen. It goes against the very thing this country was first built on "No taxation without repersentation"
Provide a nationwide, non-partisan standard for the mapping of congressional districts. Ridiculously gerrymandered districts are an insult to all voters. I realize that the party in power changes based on election, but no party should be able to slice up districts to essentially support themselves, not the voters.
bulletslinger
Yes, the Constitution needs updating. We need to address term limits, a longer presidential term to get out of this cycle of endless campaigning and clauses to address campaign financing and the role of lobbyists. It is a fantasy that this document is holier than all, but the political capital to address these issues will be highly controversial. We are a young nation, wrapped up in symbology and ideology and the constitution is weaved into that cultural fabric. As long as our citizens remain isolationist in their view of world history and geopolitics, we will revere our founding fathers as omniscient and our constitution as untouchable. There are other great political and governmental ideas all across this earth.>>>>>>>>>Our founding fathers stood up to an oppressive and evil empire and won!!! i dont appreciate you....this country so hated by so many would not exist as a beacon of freedom and you would still be bowing to a older lady as your queen....the USA humbled the british and proved their power no match for our ingeniuty,courage and wits and that my friend is worth fighting for!!!
It is time to re-write the 1st Amendment concerning churches. I have no problem if people want to believe but the rest of us should not subsidize religions by allowing tax deduxtions for money sent to a religious organization. There should be NO tax deduction for religions. If not with the 1st amendment then an independant amendment. The proper thing would be to follow the letter of the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion–"
this has nothing to do with the constitution. That is tax law. I do agree that Scientologists should not receive a tax shelter for their practices.
The great thing about the U.S. Constitution is that our Founding Fathers had the forethought to create it with the idea that it can be changed with the changing times. We don't need a new Constitution. If we want to change anything as it is written now, we can change. If we don't like how our officials are elected, we can add an amendment to change that. If we don't like an amendment, we can repeal it...like we did with prohibition.
Never have I seen someone show their "butt" so badly. Take A history course, or at least a poly sci course. THIS IS A REPUBLIC....NOT A DEMOCRACY!!. This is why the people have their house -the House of the representatives.-This is were one vote get you one person-this is where the "mob" rules. The Senate is the States prepresenative- and every state is equal.
You should have to take a test before your allowed to express an opinion... you SIR are an uneducated buffon.
The correct word is buffoon, not buffon. I hope you see the irony after accusing somebody with ignorance, not that anyboy who reads your response doubts who the real buffoon is.
Amazing so many people are in awe of a document written almost 250 years ago. I am sure you also think documents like the Bible and Quran are also still relevant today.
CORRECTION: We are neither a republic nor a democracy. The Republic has been slowly destroyed for the past 30 years and has been replaced by a national oligarchy. These people you think are running the country — Executive | Legislative | Judicial — are but pawns who kneel before the wealthiest 1% of Americans and the corporations they operate.
Pathetic. You're understanding (or lack thereof) of the Senate (with it's original intent and electoral process) is frightening. The electoral college protects us from Election Fraud (I don't want Chicago electing all my presidents). When are leftists and their ignorant masses going to give up the whole "Democracy" kick......we are a Constitutional Republic!!!! There's is a difference. Democracy is mob rule (50% plus 1 can change any law), our Constitutional Republic protects minority rights.
And why should minority rights be protected, especially when the minority is exploiting the majority? Either way, very little in the U.S. Constitution protects minority rights. It is mostly accomplished through legislative rules like the filibuster. Yes, you can say checks and balances blah blah blah... but the Senators aren't the wise statesmen the founders envisioned who cool off the passions of the House. Radicals are in the Senate too.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states - that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Thomas
You lack a basic understanding of American history so dont go and say that we need to revise our consitution just because Iceland is doing it. This just another example of poeple who think more power in less hands is good for America, sounds alot like Obama....>>>>>>>>>>WRONG!!! Can you please prove your point with fact??? or is this just an excuse to try to attack the President?? No wonder this nation is going downhill the people are so corroded by HATE!!!
It doesn't seem necessary to restructure the Senate to be based on population rather than equal representation, since the House of Representatives is already based on population. The original worry on the part of the Founding Fathers in regards to setting up a Legislative Branch was that states with higher populations would hold too much influence over states with lower populations, which is why they settled on the Great Compromise to provide the equally representative Senate for the lower-populated states' benefit and the population based House of Representatives for more popular states. I do, however, agree with Fareed in questioning the role of the Electoral College, which, as demonstrated in the 2000 election, doesn't diligently reflect the voice of the voting public.
Last I checked, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Don't accuse the United States of being undemocratic in its presidential election system. Such was not the intent. If we wanted to fix the electoral system, then we would have runoffs, both in the primaries and in the general elections.
Yes, there is always need of amendment. That's why the function was allowing in the original constitution. Personally, I believe that getting rid of the Electoral college and changing the senate are bad ideas. They represent a mentality that states are merely lines on a map and do not hold any power in and of themselves. The House represents your "One man, one vote" idea, and the senate represents the "One state, one vote" mentality. Similarly, the electoral college represents a president being elected by the states and the state representatives, not directly by the people. This is the concept of Federalism. I believe we should maintain a federal system (the states have the majority of the power) over the strong national system. I recognize the author's and other commentors' right to a different view of that, though.
In response to your other question regarding which three amendments I would propose, I would say first, there should be an amendment specifically detailing the means that the three branches of government can enforce their respective powers be respected. Right now, the congress seems overwhelmingly of the opinion that the President is violating their powers over war. However, they also seem unable to find a course of action for enforcing that, aside from writing nasty letters to the president. I realize that there is the process of impeachment, but as this is hardly an impeachable offense, there is nothing to be done (conversely, the executive branch has long held that the War Powers Act was a breach in their constitutional powers, but likewise has no way to dispute that except this administration's method of simply ignoring it). Second, I believe that rules regarding governmental openness should be included in the constitution. Given the major enhancements in communications technology, I believe that there should be constitutional requirements for openness (such as universal access to full text of all bills within, say, 24 hours of their initially being presented in congress. These documents were written electronically before being submitted in hard copy, so this should present no logistical problems unless the authors use type writers. Granted, exceptions would obviously be made for sensitive hearings in any branch of the government (such as intelligence reports). As for the third, I don't have any idea what it would look like, but it would be wonderful if there was a way to check the powers of the major political parties. It seems lately that we really have two branches of government, not three. There are republicans and democrats. The three branches do not serve as checks and balances over each other, because whichever party is leading any particular branch is typically only willing to check or balance against another branch if their party is not also in control of that other branch. Since Lincoln the Republicans and Democrats have been in nearly complete control of the government and have created this two-way pull for power, rather than the three way pull around which the entire system was designed. This ends up with a huge imbalance because congress, which is the only dual-party branch (since the executive branch is inhabited by only one party at a time, and the judicial branch is [ideally, not really] apolitical), congress gets bogged down with political infighting and the two parties spend so much time fighting each other that they have no strength left to check the other two branches. This has led the judicial branch to incrementally increase its legislative ability as judges continually legislate from the bench, since congress is too busy with infighting to try to check that breach of constitutional powers. It has also led to huge power grabs by most of the presidents in recent history, which congress is also powerless to fight against (short of the above mentioned angrily worded yet toothless letters).
Now that I've had my rant, I welcome you all to disagree with me
One other comment about my third point with the political parties having too much power. 2 parties. 3 branches of government. This makes the model of three equally powerful branches checking each other impossible (if you accept my assumption that two branches will not check each other if they are of the same party), and here is why: you will always have two branches controlled by one party (now I am abandoning the assumption in the main post that judges are apolitical, because everyone knows that's hogwash). So it will always be either 2 against 1 or 3 against none (the only exception being if congress is equally split between the two parties, the president is of one party, and the other party has a majority of seats in the supreme court. Sorry, but that's too many stars aligning at once, so I reject that as a legitimate possibility).
The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
To think that we would use social media to re-write our constitution is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Although Facebook and Twitter have redeeming values, 99.5% of social media is completely useless. Perhaps Kim Kardashian or Lebron James could be the new Madison and Jefferson. Maybe Lady Gaga could write the preamble 140 characterizes at a time. Our constitution is one of the most remarkable documents ever created. The idea that it could be changed in a similar way we pick our American Idol is nightmarish. As for Zacharia's complaints about the Electoral College and make up of the senate, I would suggest he do a little more homework and maybe he would understand the beauty and importance of these institutions. Besides, its not as if our federal government follows the constitution anyway.
This is probably one of the most poorly written opinions on the constitution I have read ever read. It is not based in any fact at all. If you felt any compulsion to read our founding fathers, you would understand they had a deep desire to formulate a system where we would not have tyranny of majority. That is why all states have equal representation in the senate. Any good Poli-Sci teacher would make you go back to your reading and actual try to write something good this time.
All I wanna know is: Where my Obama money at??
It never ceases to amaze me how some people respond to these articles. Anyway, YES, I think we should make some long needed amendments to the Constitution. You touched on one, the Electoral College (should be eliminated). But some others would be the line item veto by the president (the Supreame Court left the door open in their ruling), term limits for Congress (get the professional polititians OUT) and a required balanced budget amendment. These amendments would go a long way in setting this country back on the right course.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
In an ideal world rewriting the constitution for the 21st century is a very good idea, but could never happen in a polarizing society as we have in the USA. Our country is not united in any way shape or form. Americans for the most part don't want progress...it seems stats quo works for them. When you have 30%+ Americans protecting the ideas and concepts of the 1% very wealthy, we are put in a quagmire. Not mentioning that most Americans believe Christianity to be the only religion and therefor should be subjected to all, in a country with an extreme diversity of religions. These I believe being the two biggest issues our country is facing now has no place in our constitution. Sometimes a mess has to be made for real change to occur and I would think most Americans believe we are at the point, but we are not. I think now is not the time to be suggesting redrafting the constitution. Americans need to unite before such an endeavor could be attempted.
Here are my three amendments. Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limit on House of Representatives Amendment and Amendment that only permits flat tax on income. Congress has proven that it cannot be trusted with our money. The current marginal and progressive income tax is the penultimate, yet counterintuitive, example of that principle. Other than that, leave well enough alone.
Well, if we do revise it, it'll have to be written in language for the 6th-grade reading level - i.e., appropriate to today's USA. And it'll have to be a 1-pager, because the new generation of Americans has a short attention span. Oh... and perhaps it should have lots of jazzy pie-charts and holograms.
Have you even considered that if people try to do this... states will break off and say screw you! What if a state said we will only accept the current Constitution. What would you do then?
Zacharia, we are a republic, not a democracy. In addition, we are the "united" states, not an amorphous federal blob. Hence the reason for the "undemocratic" aspects of the US Constitution. We have an amendment process, that is sufficient, we don't need to scrap the whole thing.
He hasn't suggested scrapping the whole thing. Might want to open your eyes and read this again. He's against throwing the whole thing out, just looking for revisions. Or perhaps you were just giving a knee-jerk reaction?
I disagree. I think that in reality we have neither a Jeffersonian democracy nor a democratic republic here. I think that actually, throughout most of our history, we have had a Hamiltonian plutocracy–a system whereby the rich run our government with relatively little influence by most of the population. Of course, the plutocrats want us to believe that we have some kind of democracy. In that way we remain much easier to control. Given this, most likely little meaningful change will occur until nature forces the changes on us as the environmentally-based economic collapse now well under way continues.
It does not matter if you revise this U.S. Constitution, if you do not follow it in the first place. Our Government and President and Congress and Senate and the Supreme Court all need to take heed to this document and realize just what it say's and allows for all. It should not be revised to benefit the few and effect the masses.
Let's throw away the constitution and start speaking a different language. We could even change the name of our country and chose a different flag too.
I would propose the commerce clause be scaled back to near non-existence as it has bent, twisted, manipulated, and stretched whenever the Federal Government wants to expand its reach. Secondly, I would propose a balanced budget amendment wherein the Government must balance its budget each and every year. Lastly, like was previously mentioned, I would propose doing away with the electoral college; it is a relic reflective of a time when it would have been impossible to collect and process votes of every citizen across an expanding country; this is no longer the case.
Mr. Zakaria,
You wrote "..... set up in 930 A.D. The rocky ledge on which they gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world."
Uhmm, all except for the Greeks, Romans (from whence we get the term "Senate") and several others that preceded them by oh, say, anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 years ?
Such galling lack of editing quality or knowledge of human history would tend, on it;s surface, to disqualify you entirely from any role in commenting on the history or applicability of our Constitution.
Honestly, I think CNN pays you to write such drivel, because they know it will generate blog posts in response, and that's about the only thing justifying the advertising dollars spent on the CNN web-site these days.
Neither the Greek nor Roman bodies survived more than a few hundred years. The Icelandic Althing is nearly 1100 years in continuous operation, eclipsing even what the Greeks and Romans used for a comparatively short duration. Perhaps you should learn to think in historical context before displaying your ignorance.
Good God.Name a famous Icelandian of antiquity.Name an invention!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have taken the quote out of context. Its intent is to describe the length of time the longest existing legislative body has been around. Last time I checked the Roman Empire was no longer around.
Didn't all the banks close last year.Oh I remember,Iceland put a "sardine" in orbit one time.Hey,I got it,they do have Bjork and until she showed up as a swan,I loved her.
If the politicians were to recreate the constitution, they're likely to abolish the idea that our government is, as Pres. A. Lincoln eloquently stated, a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. And while they're at it, they'll also purge that pesky comment in there about providing for the general welfare of the states. They'll create a constitution that is less a guide and more a bible of micromanagement. Let the constitution stand as it is, let it be continued to be modified as the people see fit. If we instead opt to scrap it and start over then it really shouldn't be called a constitution; it should be called "something we'll use for now until we don't like it anymore".
...
You can't fix perfect. We have the most perfect system ever proposed. As far as constitutional convention by internet social media, I cannot imagine a dumber idea. Talk about sinking to the lowest common denominator.
We have a system specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority, which in today's terms means protecting us from the stupidity of the ignorant masses. That is why RI and CA have the same clout in the US Senate.
what would be the three amendments you would put in? How about this ... Fiat money would be illigal. No income tax. Protection of privacy.
Why update a document that many in this country don't honor anyway? People (politicians and lawyers) convenient use this document only when it is beneficial to their own evil agendas, intenetions, or desires. So it doesn't matter what document mankind draws up in this world, the only document that stands forever is the "Word of God"!!! Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words stand forever!!! Glory to Jesus Christ forever!!!
1. Outlaw lifelong political careers.
2. Outlaw lobbyists.
3. Make it legal for health insurance companies to transcend state lines so that their prices lower through competition.
4. Institute a fair tax.
He has no shame.A month ago,he was in Eygypt with 4 young activists.He tried to lead them into singing"Hosana's" for the Prez.All four declined!!!!!The Bill of Rights is the document of influence.The actual constsitution is "gobbledygook".Hey Fareed,who wrote the Bill of Rights">?
Who would be in charge of this and at what point to we stop updating? This would be a very slippery slope that could be done with good intentions but with dire consequences.
A few from my wish list: term limits for every Rep. and Sen., all campaigns for federal office are publicly funded with a limited budget (not bankrolled by corporations and hedge funders), shift electoral college "winner take all" aspect from state level to voting district level (i.e.majority of voting districts wins – not whoever takes CA, NY, TX, and FL), those on unemployment report to work detail (highway trash pickup, community service, etc.) or lose handout, &c, &c.
Again, unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention, while two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
our country is a skyscraper and the constitution is the foundation. over the past 200+ years, we have slowly added level upon level we now have the tallest skyscraper seen by mankind. you suggest we completely destroy the foundation and hope we can replace it with something better? if it works, we can continue building higher, but nothing points to our ascent being limited by the old foundation (not yet anyway). if the replacement fails, the whole thing comes crashing down. that is one hell of a risk with way more downside than upside.
I am totally in favor of changes that would totally dismantle the two party (D/R) system that is in absolute control of our state and federal governments. Any change that does not do that is just accelerating or delaying our inevitable implosion. Giving more power to the states that already have the most power is just a bad idea IMO.
I would recommend an amendment to democratize and legitimize our participation in the global community, including global policy making, war authority and judicial review. The U.S. should be able to participate in the war in Libya, for example, without the approval of elected partisan officials answering only to domestic constituents' concerns. An alternative approval process, perhaps through approval by the Security Council and a democratically elected global parliamentary assembly, could recognize the President's authority in contributing troops.
I have a problem with changing own constitution. The biggest thing I see in doing this is the fact of History in the making of laws in the first place. There has never been a law or even a new rule put into place by our constituents that did not benefit our constituents in some way, or form... or that fact it benefited the lobbyist. They have never passed a bill that did not include some hidden agenda. Also because of the way some Bills have passed there has always been loopholes, or a means to read into the Bill as they see fit.
This is a huge problem with taking on the constitution. It is by far nothing to be taking lightly. It is a huge big deal. I just don't think our constituents are up to the challenge. Their records do not reflect a total regard for the people. They represent big money, not the people. leave the Constitution alone.
We need to get rid of the anchor baby law big time! It has been abused over and over and this type of abuse is not what the law makers intended.
I'll never foregt last months T.V.show in Egypt.He's got four, young activists and he's trying to coax them into "singing praise", for the Prez.All 4 said he"s no good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Now listen Fareed,the constitution is a nebulous nothing.The Bill of rights(I'll bet a million bucks he has no idea who wrote it)is the important document.Also,only a novioce wouldn't realize. that without the electoral vote ,the canidates would appeal only and solely, to the largest states.
We are a Constitutional Republic and the power is balanced for a reason. This protects minority rights. Folks "like" a straight democracy only when there rights are not trampled which is only a matter of time should you change from a Republic. Suffice to say we have yet to understand the wisdom of the founding Father's and we will not understand that wisdom until we accept the moral code that wisdom was founded on. If you prefer an Icelandic constitution you are free to head out.
1) get rid of the electoral college. 1 person should = 1 vote. Currently, a democrat in Texas has just as much say in the Presidential race as a republican in California... exactly none.
2) Reduce the legth of service for Senators from 6 years to 4.
3) Limit the life time appointment of a supreme court judges to no more than 20 years.
4) Revise the statement "all men are created equal" to be, "all people are created equal, regardless of race, gender, religion, or belief" (and "belief" would include both political and social opinions, ie. no more McCarthyism or loyalty tests).
5) No corporate donations to campaigns, or at least make them public so everyone can see (with a limit of $50,000). and private donations limited to $5,000 per person.
Though this all could be done through amendments. I cant think of any changes so extream that would require a rewrite.
Sure, propose all you want. Here's the thing. The current constitution still rules until a 2/3 majority vote says otherwise. Unless you think you can get 2/3 politicians to vote yes, please stop talking.
I don't feel any of our current politicians are smart enough or trustworthy enough to be allowed to tinker with such an important document. Just look what they did with health care, the thing turned into a monster and no public option was even considered for more than a second.
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote."
Sadly, many Americans born and raised in this country share the same lack of historical knowledge that you do. You should probably do a little more research into how a system of government is supposed to function before you criticize it for doing exactly what it is intended to do.
Drivel. This is a terrible suggestion that ignores all of the wisdom behind the thought. The US Constitution is the confluence of the great classical liberal thinkers of the eighteenth century, and the understanding that individual freedom is more important than a strong government. There are already mechanisms to achieve political change, but retarding them to prevent knee-jerk reactions was a brilliant concept that was well enacted in the framing of our country. Mr. Zakaria proves the bias of CNN in wishing for the ability to radically shift the rules with slim majorities as one can in a simple (in the pejorative manner) democracy devoid of the checks and balances laid out in our Constitution. Also, you are historically wrong, the Supreme Court was always to hold the power it currently does. Uninformed, biased oped, you should be ashamed.
Agreed!
Exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, what Iceland is doing. Iceland will soon realize "the mob" can't Rule!
A carefully structured, decentralized form of governmenit, representative form of government, and an
electoral College avoiding a "direct election of The President by guaranteeing a majority to the popular vote winner". This latter is what " Lefties" in the USA are really after. Changing the Electoral College, With National Popular Vote Movemeents proposed amendments(SB S.679). Folks, the "lefties" are pulling out all stops in oder to guarantee their "anointed one" relection. (re: The Way Stuff Works, now taught in all schools across our USof A – a George Soros film).The former, a joint effort by Mr. Tom Golisano and Sen. "chucky" Chuck Schumer.VOTE, massive fraud is on its way this coming 2012 election!!!
1: Establish a 16 % national flat tax............no exemptions.......State taxes capped at 3% max.No other taxes.
2: If a corporation moves it's headquarters overseas or employs more than 25% of it's orders or workforce overseas then they would get punished in the form of a special scale tax.
3: Politicians can spend up to a maximum of $100,00 per campaign.No corporate funding allowed.Any excess funds can go either to the state deficit or to education.
4: Public networks must give all candidates equal access to TV time on a set aside political channel
5: Politicians are absolutely limited to 2 terms in congress and 1 in the Senate
6: Corporate donations to and lobbying of politicians banned by statute with significant penalties for non compliance.
&: Exit polling and/or projections banned.
9: All states have a uniform tax rate and no incentives or tax breaks to induce companies to migrate from state to state
10. Military spending to be capped at X% of GDP. This provision can be overridden by a special vote of congress and Senate but only for a period of 2 years.This can be rolled over as needs be.
No, it is not time for a new constitution. It is time we started following the one we have!
We need to keep the Senate, just as when the Constitution was originally drafted, as a method to protect the interests of the smaller states. Quite simply, the interests of Californians do not necessarily line up with the interests of North Dakotans. Should the Senate have been established in a method similar to the House of Representatives we would have little more than majority rule in the country, with the potential to run rough shod over minority interests. As it stands, we all too often run up against that dangerous precipice, but the Senate still holds great value in what little protection it can still offer since the, in my opinion, well intended but foolish passing of the Seventeenth Amendment.
As to any changes needed in the Constitution, we need to add a provision that would rein in the power of Washington, to strengthen the Tenth Amendment and tighten the powers of the Commerce Clause. When inactivity in commerce is seen as being under the purview of the Federal government, things have gone wrong. Look to the US Supreme Court case (I forget the name) where the wheat farmer growing a small crop just for his family's use is declared to fall under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Department and thus able to be regulated. I dislike asparagus and instead purchase broccoli and cauliflower, should that mean my choice to instead purchase broccoli really be a concern of Washington DC's?
Where did you get the idea that it is not one person one vote. That's how you elect your representation in congress, (both the house and senate) just don't confuse this with being a democracy as the United States of American is not now has not ever been and hopefully will never be a democracy, it is a Republic and therefore is not subject to the mob rule of a democracy!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a radical idea... why not tie the rewriting of the constitution to an event worthy of the task, like merging the US and Mexico into one country? Here me out. The merger would do many positive things. First it would end the illegal alien vs citizenship benefits debate, and reduce our southern boarder exposure to a fraction of what it is now. It would cripple the current drug smuggling and associated violence by giving our less corrupt than Mexico's federal, state, and military policing agencies access to the root of the problems. It would encourage a major economic boost that could last decades as people on both sides of the existing boarder move for new opportunities, construction and other infrastructure workers heading south to bring Mexico up to US standards of living and skilled and unskilled workers moving north to find better opportunities than currently available in their 3rd world like cities. There are other benefits too... To create a new Constitution for a new country makes more sense than simply disguarding what we have because it's old and we think we are smarter than our forefathers. And my addition would be the inclusion of a handful of common sense laws that would eliminate the need for creating thousands of new laws each year to cover another small sliver of the human existence.
So in order to create a new US constitution, you want to annex Mexico? Are you prepared for yet another war? Because I doubt Mexico would agree to that quietly.
I also believe that the electorial college is outdated and no longer useful. We need to set term limits on all national representitives. President is already set at 2 four year terms. Senate could be 4 three year terms. House of Representitives could be 4 two year terms. That would limit the longevity that some of these "career politicians" have. Add in to the term limits that Congress has to abide by all the rules and laws that they pass, no loopholes, no bypassing the laws. New taxes? Congress pays those also. New healthcare plan? Congress will be first in line to use it. This might help Congress actually pass legislation that everyone can live by.
1: a yearly budget is set and it takes a unanamous vote of the House, Senate, and ALL State Governors in order to spend beyond the budget (i.e: incur debt);
2: term limits for Congressional representatives – there's no reason you should stay in office just because you've been there for a long time – Congress needs fresh ideas;
3: abolition of political parties (James Madison's idea, not completely mine) – lumping your name in with a large group of people who think like you is stupid; if your ideas are any good, let's hear them, but don't just accept the status quo of a party and hide behind their size. This means that when you run for office, you actually need to have good ideas, not just put an (R) or (D) next to your name. We're not that stupid – we research before we vote.
Why would we redo a document and institution that has enabled the U.S. to become what it is. The problem now is not that the document exists it is that nobody actually follows it. What we need to do is go back and start following the law of the land and once that is done, we can make some intelligent observations on what works and what doesn't. Until we actually start living by the law there is no validation that the law is wrong. And while your at it, update that other document that was written even before the Constitution. I think more people have used that document for wrong than the Constitution!
Only a revolution that stops the corporations from controlling the news, the politicians, and the laws will fix the country. This country has been ruined and the people are alseep on the couch letting the same people ruining it tell them what to think.
WAKE UP! HUMANITY>PATRIOTISM
I don't think anyone could have summed up what's wrong with American politics and our "democracy" better than you just did. And I couldn't agree more. We have become a corporatocracy, allowng business entities to become human beings. Citizens United was deplorable, and is the single most important reason politics in the US is destined to fail. Like you say – the corp's own the news media and all information outlets, allowing an extremely dangerous system of power and control to convert Americans into submissive, obedient, subservient drones. The Middle East got sick of being treated like drones.....I'm ready to throw out the ENTIRE government right now and start from scratch. Right.....this......very....minute.
The middle east is treated like drones and attacked by heartless individuals playing "video game" like computer software that controls drones. Not all that glitter is gold. You can't take your millitary pension to the afterlife.
That is complete straw. That decision has a very minor effect compared to the influence all of the full time lobbyists in Washington do. It's a deliberate red herring, whining about campaign finance. Why don't you estimate the amount of money spent funding lobbying efforts to influence legislators, and actually write the laws passed by them, by the army of special interest lobbyists? They spend $100 on those lobbyists for every dollar they spend on campaigns.
Citizens United changed nothing.
The business of America is business.
Constitutional Amendments should be primarily about process...and I'm not convinced our process is all that bad. Unless you're looking to switch to a UK-style parlimentary system, we're going to stay a two-party state...and thats actually a good thing – think how dysfunctional we would be if 20% of the population had to wheel and deal and make corrupt bargins to get the support of minor parties.
Abolish term limits – there's no good reason why we should treat the public like they are too stupid to vote out truly bad leaders who have pulled one over too many times. Also, limit the power of the judiciary, and either expand the Senate, or switch to four-year terms so that every state can have a say each election cycle.
"Only a revolution that stops the corporations from controlling the news, the politicians, and the laws will fix the country. This country has been ruined and the people are alseep on the couch letting the same people ruining it tell them what to think."
You think Corporations are so evil? Fine – you should be the first one to surrender all the jobs they create, the events they sponsor, the luxuries they invent, etc. At some point, every corporation was a small business. Lets not punish people for being accomplished...
ok, but lets stop them from profiting off of wars, stop them from funding politicians, and keep them in check.
If the writer had half a clue, our Legislature is very democratic. The Senate is 2 members per state, the House is represented according to population. Perhaps Mr. Zakaria would feel better if California and New York simply got their ways by having the largest populations?
I do agree with dumping the electoral college. It's way outdated. It was useful 200 years ago when news was hard to come by and half the country was illiterate, but not so useful now. Besides, here in KS if you get 50.1% of the vote, you get all the ballots. How is that fair? You just threw out nearly half of the votes cast!
What is undemocratic is election fraud. Why not start with having to produce a photo ID when you vote?
Zakaria,
While advancing the discussion of constitutional issues, rights, and progress is quite commendable (unfortunately far too few members of the younger generations have even a basic grounding in the history of our country) you really need to step back for a moment and look at what you wrote down today. Your thesis is grounded in the idea that the United States is simply a federal government and each person's representation is measured in the power of their vote at the federal level. That is an incredibly simplistic view of how the US works, and is very much incorrect when you take that viewpoint and cast it over bodies such as the Senate or the Electoral College system. Our federal system of government was setup first and foremost to preserve states rights, set a legal and moral baseline for individual rights within the boundaries of the country, and finally to create a unified outward looking body to represent those states in matters of security, international commerce, and diplomacy. Of course over time power has shifted back and forth between the federal body and the states that it represents, but that is the premise. The Senate as a body was create to be a counterpoint to the House of Congress, where the strength of each state's vote is determined by the state's population. The Senate enables smaller states such as Deleware and Rhode Island to oppose the so-called tyranny of the masses where the opinions a single or small collection of much larger state can have an outsized say in laws due to their weight in the House. Without this counterpoint, you do not preserve states right's.
The electoral college is trickier, because while the number of electoral votes in each state is based on a percentage of overall population pool (similar to Congress) you do have to remember that each elector, how they may vote, and how the pool of electoral votes are given to candidates are determined completely on state laws. The electoral college actually preserves the states rights in determining the executive branch of the federal government, and while people gripe about how it doesn't always mirror the popular vote (Richard Nixon's election in 1968 is a great example) efforts to change this mechanic tend to die out because states do not want to give the power to mandate how their electoral votes are handled to the federal government, and smaller states fear any change will severely limit their ability to influence the election.
Again, it's great to see this being discussed in an open forum but this article really only muddies the water for people by making the entire question out to be an overly simple problem with equally simple solutions.
The author appears to be sorely lacking in why the bi-cameral legislature and the Electoral College were constructed as they are. The US is a Republic, not a true democracy. It was designed that way to put citizens of the smallest states (population) on an equal footing with the largest states, and all in between. However, Senators used to be appointed by State Governors, until the Constitution was amended, and that gave the States a check and balance against the popularly elected House of Representatives. I personally believe we should go back to that model, so the States might flex their muscle under the 10th Amendment again. That said there are some new Amendments that I would propose: 1) Balanced Budget – new and increased taxes, and deficit spending only with 2/3 or 3/4 Congressional approval during times of emergency and debts incurred in this manner must be rectified within 5 years; spending cuts by simple majority. 2) All laws passed apply equally to elected officials and citizens. No expemptions 3) Elected officials may not collect a pension for government service. (passion to work for the people, not a fat retirement, should be the incentive to serve multiple terms). 4) Reiteration of 10th Amendment that those powers not specifically granted in the COnstitution to the Federal government are completely off-limits and reserved to the States and the People respectively.
Why amend a document we don't use?. The world knows that the US is now a Democracy. Did you know that America was meant to be a Republic, NOT a Democracy. If you want to know more just Google 'Is the us a democracy or a republic'. You may be surprised at what you find out. I say to all those who are oppressed by our DEMOCRACY, Cry Out. I say to all those who are afraid of our own government , Cry Out. To you, the Democratic government of America, as in the time of our forefathers when THEY cried out....The Revolution is coming. We fear you no more.
Fist in the air in a land of hypocrisy!
If we limited our progress in science and medicine as much as we've limited our progress in government, we'd still be blood letting using hot skinning knives. We can pay homage to our history by using it as a foundation for a new system; much like we honor the magna carta, only it would be our history, our foundation.
When reading 'the Republic' by Plato (a bit before the American Consitution) , one is struck how little human nature has changed .So, dispite society'expressing ' itself differently , basic human nature is in fact ,the same. Any good constitution will take this into account.
Hamurabi's code was 2000BCish and the basics of the Magna Carta,etc,..Aristotle and the boys even had the word "atom".They did it all.
Overall, the constitution is fine. Any tweaking of the rules can be done with amendments. I don't trust a rewriting since corporations would have too much influence on the process. I can see the patent and copyright process gaining more legal strength than what's in the general public interest.
Don't you remember when they brought out "New Coke"? Remember "New Prell"? Remember when The Gap tried to change its logo? The Constitution has been the foundation of our country for over 200 years. It works. If we need to amend it from time to time, fine, but otherwise, don't mess with success.
Yes change Constitution add add Sharia Law u Middle eastern Moran,,,CNN the liberal shit spread Muslim Agenda,,
Thank you, Matt, for doing such an excellent job in representing US citizens with your brilliant and open-minded dialogue. /sarcasm
I would certainly not replace it. Indeed, I don't think I'd change either the wording or the intent of much of it. I certainly agree with above statements that the structure of the Senate is essential to allowing the level of variation we have from state to state. I'm not convinced that is such a good thing, but is essential to keeping that variation.
We absolutely need an amendment to clarify the 2nd amendment – but of course, to amend that, we need to agree on what to modify it to. We need to clarify the definition of "privacy" (which doesn't appear as such) because it has become such an integral part of the body legal.
It's a damn fined legal construction as it stands, even with its ambiguities (in some cases, BECAUSE of its ambiguities) – if I thought that these tweaks would harm it otherwise, I simply wouldn't do them. It is too important to THE WORLD (not just the US) to modify lightly.
In pursuit of fairness and equality, why don't we amend the Constitution to give the citizens of the District of Columbia some say in the government that it houses. It is unbelievable to think that you can live in DC but not have a voting member of Cognress representing you.
Mr. Fareed Zakaria; another foriegn born National who comes here, graduates from Yale and then proceeds to runs us down, tell us how our Country is crappy and out of touch with the world. WONDERFUL!! Evidently he didn't major is American Political History.
The Constitution is an amazing document that has served the country very well. It is a safeguard that protects us because it imposes limitations. To ask whether it is time to update the Constitution is to ignore the fact that the document is dynamic. The Constitution is not implemented or understood in the same way that it was originally written. There is a natural tension that exists in the words and how they are interpreted. In addition to the natural tension, the document has literally changed. The Constitution has been amended. Does anyone really believe that, today, they would be comfortable with rewriting a document that protects them, to be replaced with uncertainty? For instance, someone might think their changes are "better" but there's not certainty that a new Constitution would embody those values. In fact, what values would a new Constitution embody? Perhaps a more religious conservative majority could garner the most votes or input that the rights of minority voices, which are currently protected by the Constitution, would be unrepresented or even adversely represented. The Constitution can be changed but there's a process for amending it. There are two obvious benefits for the Constitutional Amendment procedure. First, it's no easy to do which means it has to be well thought out and received. Second, any amendment would have to come at the consideration of what rights are being given or taken away. Reinventing the document would suggest that the old document wasn't working and the new document should be sufficiently different. Additionally, consider the 220+ years of judicial interpretation that would be irrelevant upon doing away with the Constitution, the gap of interpretation would be problematic and uncertain. The law is build on the notion that it should be followed to provide certainty, so people know and understand their rights in order to follow the law. Finally, the Constitution is not the only "law." Congress writes Codes, and those Codes are interpreted by the courts, and agencies write Regulations, which are also interpreted by the courts. There are treaties and executive orders. There are state Constitutions, Codes, and Regulations. All of these must do at least one thing, conform to the Constitution, that is to say, not violate our rights or exceed the powers given to the respective branches in overseeing how our country is run. Focusing on the Constitution as the problem is to ignore the problem, our government doesn't know how to manage domestically or its foreign affairs. We're focused on capitalism before people and short term before long term. We focus on opposing extremes rather than finding balance that can sustain us. However, I have hope that our country can enjoy the spirit of the founders of our Constitution in finding direction.
Just as a historical thought, our "Constitution" is the second Constitution. Shortly after the original document, which didn't vest much power in the centralized government, failed, the founders put together a Constitutional Conference and rewrote "the Constitution.: It's the third if you consider the confederate constitution during the civil war (which was based, largely, on the first document).
I disagree that a new constitution is required. Our founding fathers drafted a "living" document; a document that could be amended to meet the needs throughout the passing years. To suddenly scrap the entire paper into the shredder would be somewhat of an insult. Especially to those that have fought and died for protecting the rights afforded under that document.
With all the recall elections being held currently and in previous years (by the way, I'm a WI resident, where the recalls are flying around like mosquitoes on a humid day), we seem to be entering an era of continual "do-over" politics. If we are now to include the very document that has helped define this nation since its very inception, then I fear that our republic, as I've known it, will simply be thrown to the wayside. To me, such a scenario is unthinkable.
Good government begins and ends when citizens participate in that government. Those who want to make change should participate in the governmental process. Simply declaring "do over!" is by no means the way to handle.
And I didn't major in spelling or typing as you can tell.
DOH!
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
But... it is broke. So it should be fixed.
Sitting on a document just because history says so is irresponsible and cowardly.
What, pray tell, is broke about the United States Constitution? The only thing that is broke about it is us not wiling to follow it. Perhaps what you meant to say is...because the Constitution doesn't say what I think it should say, we should replace it.
While I agree with Rick and his defense of the senate, I think he should have said it in a slightly more benevolent way. As to addressing your actual question, there is one main issue that our constitution fails to address. There is also a slight shortsightedness displayed by the founding fathers with another issue. The slight shortsightedness is term limits. Term limits for our representatives should be in the constitution. We can argue until we are blue in the face about the subject, but the bottom line is that you would eliminate a host of problems if you could eliminate the notion that being a politician is a career. As for the main issue, the one thing our constitution brilliantly addresses is the prevention of a tyrranistic state. However, it does not even acknowledge the tyrranistic behaviors and tendencies corporations are capable of. The common person should be, in part, protected from some of these atrocities.
And do you really think our congress is going to add in term limits on themselves?
Absolutely not. It was not too long ago they were talking about revising the 14th amendment, and they had a big wonderful popular thing to say about what was planned, but our modern day lawmakers like to slide things in under the radar. It's not what they say they wanted to do that was the real problem, its what they were not saying that concerns me.
Everybody seems to forget about Check and Balance; it's the whole reason we have three seperate but equal branches of government; to keep any one branch from getting too powerful. So some idiot thinks its' a good idea to use Facebook and Twitter to get the information on what to change? Both of those are under the control of a select few, and there is nothing to prevent them from altering or curving the results in their own best interest, there is no check and balance. For that matter, CNN has the same issue.
We are the United States of America. We do not change our sacred ideals at the whims of other nations. America is great because of its enduring principles, which have spanned centuries and are rooted on tradition. The United States Constitution is the key to our success, the fundamental document of American idealism. Therefore, it cannot be changed, else our entire nation lose its identity.
Many of Mr. Zakaria's arguments are ridiculous and impractical. In the United States, we update the Constitution via amendments, which is why we've had 27. And yes, there are aspects of the Constitution that are archaic in this modern age and that need to be updated. But replacing the Constitution with a brand new one as Mr. Zakaria suggests is obscene and idiotic.
While the role of the Supreme Court has indeed changed since Marbury v. Madison, judicial review was a key principle discussed by the Founding Fathers. Indeed, its explicit omission from the Constitution implies a level of authority the Founding Fathers intended the Supreme Court to assume. As for the rest of the judiciary, Congress clearly has the power to establish and define it, per Article Three of the Constitution.
Most Americans can agree that the Electoral College is the most archaic part of the Constitution. However, revising it would destroy the principle of federalism our Founding Fathers held so dearly to their hearts. The only practical change would be to make it representative. That way, if a State splits 51-48, then one candidate gets one more electoral vote than the other, rather than all the electoral votes of the State. However, this issue is a State issue, and it is meant to be decided by the States, rather than the federal government.
The composition of the Senate epitomizes the art of compromise in the United States. Here in America, we have two houses–one proportioned by population, the other fixed at two members per State. That way, both the small states and the large states adequately contribute to the country as a whole, rather than skewing representation to the larger states. If this compromise is overturned, as Mr. Zakaria suggests, than the fundamental legislative principle in this country becomes irrelevant, and we lose our national identity.
Finally, Bush v. Gore in 2000 represents the worst side of American politics–partisanship. The case was 5-4 in favor of Bush, stopping the recount in Florida and proclaiming Bush as our 43rd President. This case should have prompted Congress to amend the Constitution, because the Supreme Court should not have the power to decide the President or interfere in a state's recount. However, this incident does not warrant a new constitution. Electoral reform works both ways, and any changes would alter a precedent firmly established over 219 years of American elections.
The United States survives because it is isolated from the rest of the world, geographically and politically. We thrive because of our independence, allowing us to create our own political ideals and secure our own rights. Although other nations change their identities, we remain strong because of our tradition, epitomized by the Constitution of the United States of America.
-An anonymous high school student
Federalism has been slowly destroyed for the past 30 years and has been replaced by a national oligarchy. These people you think are running the country — Executive | Legislative | Judicial — are but pawns who kneel before the wealthiest 1% of Americans and the corporations they operate.
You can't be so cynical. While corporations and special interest groups surely have a powerful influence in American politics, they are checked by the very nature of the federalist government the Founding Fathers set up. The Constitution ensures representative government through checks and balances, so while many public officials are corrupt, a single corporation cannot rule America. Furthermore, no one alliance of corporations exists. While you can argue that our public officials represent an oligarchical hierarchy of corporate greed, the facts are that enough regulation and general, honest activism exist to preclude corporate dominance in public policy.
Anonymous high school student: You write as if the founding fathers are practically god-like and untouchable. Whatever was "dear to their hearts" is not necessarily what is good for the United States.
Also, as an outsider from Canada, I have hard learned advice for Americans thinking of changing their constitution. In Canada, there is a broad consensus that our constitution is flawed and to this date our second most populous province, Quebec, has not signed the document. However, from 1970 to 2000, constitutional issues dominated our politics to he detriment of other more important and immediate issues. Twice, in 1987 and in 1992, proposals to renew / change the constitution narrowly failed and almost led to the break up of our country in 1995. Since then, we have collectively learned that the easiest, least painful and most realistic way to achieve concrete change is within the existing framework, despite its flaws. Some food for thought.
That's exactly what I said. I said that any reform must be made within the existing framework–via constitutional amendment. And as I stated, the principle of federalism is what the Founding Fathers held dear to their hearts. Because federalism is America. If federalism is not what is "good for the United States," then the United States is not good for the United States. Without federalism, our government, our ideals, our entire way of life changes. Our Constitution has shaped the United States into the great nation that it is today: scrapping it would be an insult to that history and a severe blow to America's national identity.
Canada is not the United States of America. Two totally different systems of government, ideology, history, politics, and mindsets govern our respective peoples. As such, the newer Canadian government is irrelevant to the United States of America, much as the frequent changes of European politics are irrelevant to America. A key example is France. France has written five different constitutions. And when France writes a new constitution, do the changes then travel across the Atlantic? No. America functions off its national unity and its ability to solve its problems internally, without reacting to each and every international change. Although the modern age eases communication and bridges the gap between the United States and the rest of the world, advancements in technology do not alter a nation's history and do not change the fundamental identity of the nation.
Mr. Zakaria,
The Senate is constitutional, as changed by the 17th Amendment. This amendment put the election of the Senators directly to the people, instead of the Senators being chosen by the state legislatures as per the original design. The original intent was to allow the House be the voice of the people, and the Senate be the voice of the states. While a state like California or Texas could weild much power in the House, they would be checked in the Senate, creating a smaller system of checks-and-balances within the Congress. This way states with small populations still had a chance to fight against legislations favored by states with large populations. In other words, the Founding Fathers found a way to deal with this problem, but we had to go change it and make Senators direct representatives of the people. Either way you look at it, both ways are still constitutional, as they are part of the constitution.
wonderfully articulated!
John
There is a simple fix to what is suggested here. The Senate is the problem. We need to limit the term of Sentors to the same term as the President. The six year term is just asking for the problems we have with the Senate – the "good ol boys network".
I believe that the six year term is short enough because it allows a senator a time to gain valuable resources for thier state, however I do not believe anyone should be able to be re-elected to it.
I would like to see the following three amendments: 1) revocation of personhood or citizenship status for corporations, restricting it to humans only; 2) full social equality of rights of personhood for all people, regardless of status; 3) abolition of the electoral college, with direct popular voting established.
I'm sorry but I cannot take someone who was born in another country's idea on what america should be doing seriously and neither should any of you..go back and pull your homeland out of the abyss of corruption and squallor instead of talking this junk, the day anyone in a position of political power seriously suggests this act will be thier last days in office..what kind of scum thinks they have the right to tell us what to do with our country when it was so much better in made them leave thiers and what to become a citizen...
I find most of the posts entertaining. 1) Where the intelligentsia are berating the not so intelligentsia. 2) The Liberals who berate the Conservative(s) for their opinion. 3) The people who do not have a clue what this is about. 4) The author who just wants to change it to support some of the citizens. 5) And not last and not the least, the clue less.
Lets explore, the civil war of liberals against conservatives, lets explore that one. Conservitives who believe in gun ownership, the liberals who do not. Wjho are going to come to the aid of the liberals? The Government?
Lets explore the one about abolishing the house of represenatives, plain and simple "Mob Rules". That way when somebody or their beliefs are outlawed the could be lynched in the public square. Have we not seen enough of this in other countries and here in some states.
Last but not least, lets revive the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). This way we ALL have equal rights. Not some more than other. Oh right that will not pass, too many special interest groups will not stand for their special rights being trampled.
In parting, have fun with this post. But if it got your Pan@@es in a bunch. please stand up and readjust.
Have a great day/year/life.
I truly believe that we our Constitution could use a huge overhaul. In fact, I feel that it might not be a bad idea to scrap the whole thing and start over again. The current Constitution was framed upon cultural mores that are totally outdated. It's time to bring the country into the 21st century and become a nation more tolerant of differences, that is based upon the will of the people, not corporations, and do away with the electoral college and permit we the people to elect our President. We need to revamp election laws and prevent the kind of electoral debacle that occurred in 2000. We need to rewrite our civil rights laws and create a constitution that is more effective at preventing discrimination and truly provides for the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" for all, not just the wealthy and Tea Partiers. Oh!!! And get the religious right out of the business of dictating their beliefs to the rest of the country.
Oh!! How could I forget.....include in a new Constitution the human right to obtain health care and live a healthy life.
You already have a right to obtain health care and live a healthy life. Just like you have a right to obtain food.
So, you would like a Constitution that would discriminate against those you don't agree with. Kind of goes against having a Constitution that doesn't allow discrimination.
See, that is the beauty of the one we have now...it allows no discrimination because it allows people to be able to think and speak freely their thoughts, even if you don't agree with it. It allows people to believe as they choose to without allowing the Government to force its citizens to either believe in one faith, or not believe at all. It allows us to protect ourselves.
How would you improve on this? Anything beyond this is a start of limitations of freedoms that a good many of us hold dear. Our Constitution is very tolerant of diversity. It is us, the people, who are intolerant and try to use the Constitution as a weapon against those we don't agree with.
back to the original question: What three amendments would I add?
28: Where no victim can be identified, no crime has occurred.
29: All Federal laws must automatically expire after 7 years, unless Congress votes unanimously for the law, where-upon it expires after 15 years.
30: All taxation of individual incomes, however derived, must be subjected to a flat tax never to exceed 10%
the constitution you seem to think needs changing zakaria is what protects you from being kicked outta here try showing some respect to it next time!!!
Fareed,
I've been reading your columns for some time and generally agree with and respect your opinions and wisdom. I like where you're going with online discussions as a means to truly open legislature to the public. However, the constitution as it was written is the reason why we have risen up as the global power so quickly. By guaranteeing individual liberty and freedom, it has spawned the creativity of a nation of people to far outcreate the rest of the world combined. The problem we are having now is that we are NOT abiding by the constitution anymore – not that it needs to be revised. Our legislature goes to great lengths to circumvent the constitution, to take more and more power away from the people and centralize it. Its sad that we the people have allowed this – why be responsible for your own life when the government can do it for you? This philosophy has led to a huge expansion in government that has enslaved middle class parents now having to pay for everyone 0-25, 65-death, all unemployed, all on wellfare, and ALL OF GOV'T. This has slowly destroyed the American family and our values in the process. I'd love the prospect of any for the average citizen to have influence over US legislature. Even if the brightest fairest minds were heard, I find it hard to believe that these ideas would make it into any meaningful document. We have simply given up too many rights to the upper class to have them give them back so easily. I think that the people who actually influence our laws would much rather prefer the status quo with themselves living as an anonymous upper class ruling over a socialized middle class. I'll be honest in saying any revisions to the constitution will likely move us closer to this communistic end. Now is a dangerous time to make alterations to our greatest asset – the wisdom of past empires revised to allow us to succeed where they have failed. To give this legacy up to the whims of a culture adverse to personal responsibility and an insatiable upper class would be suicide.
The US Constitution does not allow political change decided by voters to take place. This document – with its numerous amendments- does not allow direct democracy (ie respecting voters' decisions, whatever they may be) to come into place according to the simple majority vote. There are too many layers of political game playing between the voters and the final bill. As a result, there is great political "inaction", which hurts the US. The current Constitution will not enable the US to survive the major social and economical crisis This document are obsolete.
Complaining about the structure of the Senate? First off, we don't live in a democracy of one man, one vote, we're in a representative republic, and the structure of the Senate is to insure majority rule is not the law of the land. Each state is given the same power in the Senate, it's what protects small states like Wyoming, Hawaii and Alaska from large states like New York and California. Without that representation, states like that would be better off as independent nations. How do you purpose to protect smaller population state's rights under a changed Senate?
And the brilliance of our Constitution is that it already can be changed, and evolve with the people. There never has been a Constitutional Convention called by the states, but they're in their rights to do that under the Constitution, if there is enough support to change something, it can be changed. We don't need to start over from scratch.
So we need a new Constitution because we now have toilets that flush? What? Did I miss something.
1) Yes, Wisconsin does have the same number of Senators as California with only a fraction of the population...this was done intentionally and should be left the way it is (otherwise, our laws would consist only of what was important to California and New York).
2) No, canvasing Twitter and Facebook is a bad way to create the framework for our society. Amends 1 – 10 would consist of nothing but Rick Rolls, NYAN Cats, ORLY Owls, Chuck Norris Jokes, and "U MAD BRAH?" questions.
At least the Chuck Norris jokes would be funny.
LOL, Rick your are correct. The structure of the House and Senate was a stroke of democratic genius. It gives the smaller states an equal vote (senate) with out stripping the larger states of their power (house of reps.) given that they contribute more in man power (labor) and economics to the country. With that said the US constitution has shown that it needs to be "updated". My 3 amendment updates would be thus:
1. Term limits on all members of Congress. If they knew they wouldn't be returning maybe they would finally make the unpopular and hard decisions.
2. Severely limit or erase corporate contributions to politicians. Maybe the politicians would start working for the people again and not the highest bidder.
3 (and most controversial) . Update the "every baby born in the US is a citizen". This is not targets to Hispanics, because Africans, Europeans, and Asians (eastern and western) have been abusing this "right". Yet only Hispanics are being vilified about it (I wonder why? Turn the poor against the poor and they won't notice that they are both being used and abused). I am not a racist, bigot, hater or whatever term you want to try and use just calling it like I see it, but as they say, "A hit dog will holler".
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Florida – 78%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania - 78%, Virginia - 74%, and Wisconsin - 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska - 70%, DC - 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine - 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska - 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada - 72%, New Mexico - 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island - 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont - 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky - 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri - 70%, North Carolina - 74%, Oklahoma – 81%, South Carolina – 71%, Tennessee - 83%, Virginia - 74%, and West Virginia – 81%; and in other states polled: California - 70%, Connecticut - 74%,, Massachusetts - 73%, Minnesota - 75%, New York - 79%, Oregon – 76%, and Washington - 77%.
Most voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large population states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, The District of Columbia, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), and Washington (13). These eight jurisdictions have 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Nice to see the left-wing socialist agenda really come out. And the scary part? Obama listens to this guy.
Mr. Zakaria, you have gone too far this time. The Constitution was written with the full understanding that changes would have to be made from time to time, and those are called amendments. There is a system written into the document with which to make those amendments, and the reason it has held up for over two hundred and twenty years without your input, is because it is the greatest democratic work in the history of mankind. Please, if you want to see amendments made, write your congressmen and senators, otherwise leave the United States and go back to wherever it is you came from.
Yes, let's revamp the constitution so we can take care of all the ILLEGAL immigrants (oh, I'm sorry, they're 'undocumented citizens' aren't they *scoffs*), protect the drug dealers (and take care of all the users before we help those with issues not brought upon by themselves), pedophiles, ah, and to make it that much easier to murder babies *nods* I think that's an excellent idea. Because that is what would happen after all, isn't it? That's what people keep screaming about. Oh, and we'd lose out guns and all sense of privacy as well.
It is not time for a new Constitution, nor is the social media approach the right one even if it was. The Constitution was written with guiding principles. These principles can stand the test of time and should be used when considering specific laws that are appropriate for a particular time period. They are not prescriptive and/or outdated. I admit that I have not read the Iceland document, so I cannot speak to whether this was the case for theirs.
And, regarding the use of social media, it would be highly biased and unfair. In a country where we frequently hear arguments such as the unfairness of requiring IDs to vote because certain demographics cannot afford or don't have easy access to a picture ID, this approach would preclude the involvement of many more demographics. For starters, the less fortunate or "lower class" wouldn't have the same access to computers. And, one of the strongest demographics, older Americans wouldn't have the same computer savvy to participate. Even if we worked out all of these details, special interests and lobbyists would find a more powerful platform to push change than the one that Americans despise and complain about now. And, lastly, who would be on the Constitutional Council and how would they be selected. We already have a situation where the Judicial Branch has been politicized and every case that comes before it is directly dependent on who happens to be on the bench at that time.
So, it sounds nice. But, it would not work.
There are flaws in the current Constitution. I believe they are relatively small and fixable, given the political will. The flaws in our current civil/legal society, are the direct result of flaws in the law (the Constitution). Some tweaks I would make would be: 1) remove citizenship for non-people (corporations, combines and trusts), 2) express health care and education as a fundamental right, 3) prohibit states from having standing armies (armed police forces), 4) allow presidents a single term of 5 or 6 years, and allow congressmen and senators single terms as well, 5) Reassign the war powers to Congress and only permit the president to exercise command of military forces following the declaration of war.
Revising sounds like a good idea, but keep in mind...this is America. I have seen the rise of religious fanatics. Personally, I practice my faith according to the way I choose. Just because I don't celebrate my religion like they do doesn't make me less of a Christian. I would be very worried about that group forcing their views of religion into a new constitution, and what they would do if they don't get their way. We have all seen examples of that in recent years.
As a Hispanic (born and raised in the US), I have seen discrimination rear it's ugly head – and yes, especially towards Hispanics. I would be very worried about discrimination making its way into a new Constitution – not just towards Hispanics, but African Americans, Muslims, Asians, etc.
1. Popular vote for presidential elections
2. Updated rights, liberties and freedoms for all (i.e., Gay, lesbian – marriage)
3. Universal Health Care and Education for all.
Land of opportunity – not if it's all right-wing lunacy. Either way, the US is declining in influence and power. Hopefully Americans will learn about globalization – but maybe not before it's too late.
and please – no ridiculous religious dogmas...
No.
This column coming from a George Soros Drone.. A hired gun for Global Initiative which Soros paid to run for one world order under one rule of law, one monetary standard, one sole leader..
Countries would not have the independent Freedoms of self rule; instead countries would follow the One Global World Order. Sounds familiar? Think hard..
CHINA!!!!!
This is not fear mongering..
Zarkaria and others like him want a world without borders, world without Individual freedoms..
A collective… Folks.. Don’t be fooled by this guy.. He’s an implant to incite and change Americans thinking that the enemy of Freedom is America.
He’s that piece of doo doo that stuck in the bottom of your shoe.
Scrape him off with their phony change their name; keep their agenda for a Socialist World Order.
Beware of the Pigs..
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
-+- -+-
Mr. Fareed Zakaria has a profound lack of understanding with respect to the colonial history that resulted in the U.S. Constitution. He also has a profound lack of understanding regarding current events, i.e. why revise a document we have so blatantly, in many ways, disregarded? Fortunately, the first amendment protects the expression of ideas such as his. Besides do we really trust our current leaders (gag) to revise the U.S. Constitution with or without input from the people? Rhetorical question.
Absolutely not, period.
This man wants to put the Constitution of the United States up on social networking sites to re-write it. How is it that this man Fareed has come to be seen as an intellectual? I cry foul on this one and question his loyalty to the U.S. Just what does he want to see written into it, Sharia law?
Way to jump straight to racist conclusions for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence other than the author's name. I'm ashamed to share any common traits with you.
Absolutely...
1) Term limits in the Senate and the House
2) Health Care as an inalienable right (you can't persue happiness without health)
3) Publicly funded campaigns (all candidates get the same amount to make their case to the people)
4) Abolish the 2 party system (I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking, wait, it's the same guy with both puppets!)
5) Re-write the second ammendment to reflect the reality that we can no longer reasonably defend ourselves from the gvt, and as such private citizens have no business owning weapons whose only intent is to kill as many people as quickly as possible.
I could go on, but you get the point...
You're an idiot. No nicer way to put it. You are an embarrassment to true Americans.
USAforever-
Which part was the dumbest? The part where I think our politicians have been bought and paid for on both sides of the aisle, the part where I recognize that gun control laws are necessary (unless you think I ought to be able to buy a fully functional nuke if I can afford it), or the part where I don't accept that we can't provide quality healthcare for everyone?
Luke-
Thanks, good to know there are thinkers instead of just chest-pounders out there.
LMAO @ XAQ You are definitely not a thinker.
Sure, laugh, but I still haven't read anything coming from your mind-hole that resembles a well though out position on anything aside from my intelligence, which given the brevity of your responses and either lack of typing skills, or worse, lack of general english education, is likely beyond yours.
Dude, just come back with a reasoned response! I love debate, I abhor mindless attacks.
I absolutely agree.
By the way, to the person who make a "true american" remark. If a true American is someone who believes that a corporation has a moral duty to preserve a nations wealth, that people shouldn't be forsaken healthcare simply because they cannot afford it, and that military might is righteous to use for any reason, then count me out. Because I am not a part of some cult which forces me to believe some inane things.
Just another Socialist DRONE.. Paid to agree with Zarkaria and other Globalist..
-+- -+-
Socialist drone? Nice. How about a rebuttal with cogent arguments? Is that beyond your ability, or do you just prefer to keep pushing our discourse down the road of division and derision?
XAQ you first need to being some intelligence to the conversation. I am afraid you are incapable of doing so.
"you first need to being some intelligence..." for a "true american" you sure have a lot of problems with english.
BTW, you haven't yet brought an argument, only poorly orchestrated attacks that belie your point (i.e., that you are smarter than me.)
I forgot my favorite proposed ammendment:
6) A Person will be defined by law as an individual, living human being (i.e., not a corporation)
i was with you until your thoughts on guns. The right to protect self and property. Screw everyone else. If you ban guns the idiots you DONT want to have them, will still find a way to get them and law abiding citizens will suffer the wrath. I like the thought that if some ahole in the night breaks into my house i can shoot his dumbbutt without a second thought. If he didnt want to get shot. Shouldnt have tried to steal from me. But everything else. I am on board with ya.
Hippo-
Thanks for a reply that presents a point of view rather than a mindless attack! I don't think we should take away guns, self protection is a right and should be respected as such, but do you really need an AK-47 to protect yourself? Or a Gloc with a 30 round clip? I would argue that no one needs those weopons for self protection. There's a reason they call them "assault weapons" rather than defensive weapons. The point I was making is that when the 2nd ammendment was written, you hunted with the same weapons you fought a war with. That no longer applies, and to try to apply that thought process now is to say that I, as a private citizen, should be allowed to own a tank (or a nuke, for that matter) so that I can protect myself from the government. I don't buy it. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-common sense, and the strength that the NRA has to resist any common sense gun laws doesn't make sense to me.
I think it would be a huge mistake to junk the Constitution and start over. A better way is to address the changes that need to be made and do so in a way that is not political, if that's possible. Given the extreme partisanship we have today, I doubt if Congress could produce a document that would be better than what we already have. Each side would slant it to their benefit and "we the people" would be diminished.
Leave it alone and amend it as necessary. But for goodness sakes, don't junk it and start over. I fear what a new one would look like.
If we opened that up, the religious would forsake some of the most valuable segments in the original document, like the freedom of and from religion, the freedom to speak. Another issue would be with the injection of pro-capitalist mantras, which I would despise beyond belief. Capitalism, while is what we use today, is only an evolved state of a prior economic system. We cannot limit ourselves to this economic system indefinitely. Also, the result of the "red scare" would cause any welfare or public service anything to be diminished or hindered.
I agree... what, with the amounts of money being thrown around these days to win elections could you imagine the levels of corruption there would be if we were to go down the road of what this man, Fareed Zakaria suggests...! HELL NO!
The Senate acts as a check on the popular rule that is popular rule provided for in the House, that shouldn't change. The electoral college has been modified to support the popular vote in each state. Technically the can vote for whomever they want, realistically they don't. Term limits will not work, I am from CA and when they instituted term limits, it just gave the power to faceless Mandarins and partisans who care more for the short term than the long term outlook. Lengthening the terms of the various leaders, President, Senators, and Representatives would be a better way to go. Before, two years was a long time, now it is a blink of an eye. (Relatively speaking). Maybe the Representatives term should be three not two.
I would suggest a standardized voting system. As it stands now, each of over 3000 counties in the US can decide how votes are recorded using voting maches, paper ballots or electronic voting machines. Also, instead of having everyone re-register to vote why not have a master voter directory based upon where people live/driver's licences, etc? At electon time, any voter omissions/changes can be processed when the voter shows up to vote.
First, i don't see any possibility of wholesale replacement of the Constitution. It would take a civil war to bring it about, and another larger civil war would result from its being put in place. BUT – if it were to happen, here are a couple ideas:
First, and obviously, abandon the electoral college. It was a necessity when the Constitution was written, but is no longer today. Direct vote for President. End of that story.
Second, leave the House of Representatives as they are. Same with the Supreme Court. No changes are really necessary, and the disruption wouldn't be worth it.
As for the Senate, major changes are needed. End the "two per state" rule. The Senate was intended to be the senior body of representatives, so make their office a single, ten year term, with no re-election. Their office to be voted for by the entire nation, as an "at large" candidacy. Five Senators to be elected each two years, total of twenty-five senators. Thus would end the "for life" safe office holders elected for individual states, and the need for electioneering once elected. This is a body of people with the entire nation's best interest to consider and defend.
There you have it. Comments?
I ask Mr Fareed Zakaria to resign his position as commentator on CNN, and I personally will boycott CNN until he does resign.
I second this. A world news organization is NOT the place for Fareed's (or CNN's) personal agenda.
Are you incapable of reading "Blogs" in the URL? It is about his commentary. It would be like watching Glenn Beck, except in this case I actually agree with Fareed.
In the meantime, where will you be gracing bloggers and commenters with your insight, so I can continue to understand the nuts and bolts of our democracy?
I've been everywhere a million times.Other then US,Canada,Mexico,Europe(not Greece) and Hongkong,it's a third world hell out there.The constitution means nothing.The Bill of Rights is the defining document,.Hey Fareed,who wrote it.By the way,if not for the electoral college,politicians would cater solely to Texas,Cal.NY.,etc,..
It is all very well for one to say Iceland is crowdsourcing its Constitution. The truth is, a political elite will review and accept, modify or reject the changes based on their own self-interest as well as that of the people. The Althing of old was a much different body than it is currently, and the same can be said of our Congress. Neither represents an improvement on the original.
The only purpose of a Constitution is to define, and more importantly, strictly limit to delegated powers of the government in question. In the case of the United States, that delegation was from the States, which in turn were delegated powers from the people. In no case does a delegated entity properly possess more rights than the delegator.
As to the goals behind Mr. Zakaria's question, I say this: Rewriting a Constitution, any Constitution, based on the desire of people to live at the expense of others, or to boss other people around, is a recipe for disaster and decline.
However, Mr. Zakaraia is correct in noting that there are flaws in the U.S. Constitution. There are several clauses in the U.S. Constitution that are consistently misinterpreted ("Necessary and Proper", "Interstate Commerce", "General Welfare"). The sole legitimate purpose of any government is to secure the rights and liberty of the people. If amendments are identified that will remove any phrases that allow for misinterpretations of original intent, then I am all for it.
We need a paper ballot amendment, a natural persons amendment, and repeal the second and twenty second Amendments:
"All federal elections shall be conducted by voter verifiable paper ballot."
"The rights protected by this Constitution apply to natural persons only and no other entity."
Another idiot who should just keep his ignorant pie hole closed.
I betcha you cannot say one thing without adding some sort of insult.
Sure I could, however, when insults are warranted, I will give them.
I'm not sure I understand your position. Ok, the 2nd ammendment I get...it's in the top 3 polarizing issues in the country. I disagree with you, but that's fine so does ~50% of the rest of the country.
But the 22nd? Why? Why would you want endless re-elections of presidents when, IMHO, this is the biggest problem plaguing congress today.
I'd suggest instead of removing the 22nd, we need to EXPAND it to include congress members as well.
In my opinion no single man is so great as to have that power for that long. I think we need LESS career politicians and more farmers, doctors, teachers, engineers, businessmen, law enforcement officers, scientists, etc serving our country in the highest levels of government. THOSE were the people who built this country. The PEOPLE of the country, not people who spend an entire career being a politician and who have one proven skill, raising money for campaigning.
One of the best aspects of the U.S. Constitution is that it incorporates a mechanism for its amendment, the most important being the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, and the 14th, abolishing slavery. That being said, I can't think of another country in the world where the balance between the interests of the various citizens and the government has been so ably balanced as that of our Constitution, whether intentionally, by amendment, or through interpretation. Ultimately, the efficacy of any government depends upon the willingness of the citizens to participate and make intelligent decisions for their future. While the U.S. has suffered at times from demagoguery, more so of late, the balance has been remarkably strong, and we can only hope that the American people realize again that the strength of our nation lies in respecting the great foundation of on which our government rests.
I do feel the electoral college takes the actual vote away from the people and would like to see that end. I like Iceland's idea of no corporate funding. These corporations are, no doubt, expecting support for their personal agendas in return for those millions, even if it hurts American citizens and the democracy we so cherish.
Abolishing the electoral college is going from the frying pan into the fire. It will result in a proliferation of third parties each of which will need only a PLURALITY to win the White House. This means that in almost every election (not just 2 per century like Bush v. Gore) the president will be someone who gets 35 or 40 percent of the popular vote. This will happen almost every time, while the Electoral college problem almost never happens. Also, if you don't like the fact that Alaska and California get the same number of Senators, then that's an argument for abolishing the Senate entirely. What's the point of having two houses of Congress if the mebers of each are chosen the exact same way? You should just have one big "House" and keep it simple. Bottom line is, the Founders were smarter than we are and we shouldn't screw around with what they created unless we have thought it through VERY well.
While still allowing freedom of speech for all, there should be a subsection to it disallowing people to claim, "The Founding Fathers thought this or that," unless they specify what ideology of the founding fathers they are referring to. E.g. "The Founding Fathers who were Federalists wanted this," or "The Founding Fathers who were Anti-Federalists wanted this."
Yeah.. I could care less. It is like trying to say "Jesus was a capitalist" or "Jesus doesn't like that you voted DemoCRAP" type things. These propaganda/misattribution of ideas are very dangerous. That being said, they ought still be protected. We need to educate people better on logical fallacies and such, and those wouldn't effect anyone. Unfortunately, our education system is failing for various reasons, one being the negative stigma that the religious put on schools. "They are indoctrinatin' our kids! derpa derp."
Yeah...of course they should be protected to say that. Though there are a great many changes we can make to the constitution (see removing the 2nd amendment) my original post was a joke.
This is absolutely ridiculous. We need a government and a society that follows the Constitution before we decide to abolish it and start over. This is madness, truthfully.
Fareed cites how the electoral college isn't 'democratic' in that a President can be elected even if they don't receive a majority of the popular vote. First, we don't live in a democracy – we live in a democratic republic. There are many difference, but the main one between the two is in a democracy the majority can strip the rights of the minority while in a republic the majority has the responsibility to protect and uphold the rights of the minority. We have to begin with this point that we don't live in a democracy but in a republic.
Second, Fareed cites that 'the structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic' in that each state has two equal representatives regardless of state population. Fareed is an intelligent man and I'm sure he's not only aware that the House of Representatives acts as the body in government that is more representative of state's population but that certain powers are given only to the House as it is the more representative body.
We could go on debating these points – which is the whole point of this method of government.
Yet, my main question here is what is Fareed's motivation in using one of the world's largest news networks to suggest that we need to abolish our Constitution? Certainly there's a place for editorial commentary in the media. Yet, nowhere in the video nor the accompanying transcript is there mention that this bit was an editorial. Which begs the larger question – does CNN share Fareed's opinion that we need to new, modern form of government? And if that is the case, we Americans better speak up now or we may awaken one morning in a very different country then we're used to. Sure, our rights are on the attack from every angle. But if we open the Constitution we open a pandora's box that could leave us without many of our protected, unalienable rights.
Last thing...I just noticed...on CNN, the title of this story is "Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?" (link: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/06/19/exp.witw.zakaria.constitution.cnn). Yet, as I share this on Facebook, notice there's only mention of the few seconds in the video devoted to Iceland's process. But if you listen to this story you'll definitely see that Fareed is making the argument that we should revise our Constitution. Odd, isn't it?
yes, lets give the government another way of controlling our lives. There are too many opions and suggestions that can be had. One of the worst articles to suggest an idea ever.
I agree with the electorial college needed to be looked over, but I think the IDEA of the senate and congress are set up just fine right now. But what I do think should happen is Congress should not be elected positions and that they should rotate every so often. I believe that Congress would work much better if corporations weren't allowed to give "donations", and I also think that the people would have a better voice if Congress was chosen at rondom from the general population, kind of like Jury Duty. You can say that's dumb and some people wouldn't take it seriously, but the majority would, and that would lead to laws being passed that actually help the general populace, instead of just the washington 'fat cats'
The US needs to be split up... it's too large and unwieldy. The Constitution could then be reconfigured / rewritten to suit the respective citizenry.
Scrap the SECOND AMENDMENT, since you no longer need a "well regulated militia", given that you already invest enough in 1) army; 2) State troopers; 3) border police; and no longer have to fight tribes of indigenous people.
Another ignorant moron.
USA–perhaps instead of trolling this thread you could offer some opinions as to why you think the 2nd Amendment should remain as it is?
I do believe that the constitution needs to be rewritten. The reason I believe this needs to be done is that I don't feel as a society we can truly advanced forward until otherwise. I am not say that we completely get rid of all of the amendments that currently exists. What I would like to see is that the current amendments get written INTO into as the new document, then start over with brand new amendments.
Do we really want a constitution written by corporate America? I agree it needs a major updating, but there is no one I trust to do it.
It needs no such thing, never has, never will, period.
From time to time a minor tweak may be needed and that is what the amendment process is for.
What it really needs is a government that actually follows it. Right now, both major parties put their party above the country. Traitors to the last man.
I can't say I entirelly disagree with Jeff on this one. It's mind boggling to me how polarized our two party system has become. What are the odds that 400million people fit into two categories, two categories that happen to have the EXACT OPPOSITE opinion on EVERY issue. The math would be astronomical.
The reality is that the two parties have grown to a size of importance that they just exist to counter each other any more. It's absurd. And until that deathgrip they have on American voters is broken, either through term limits, campaign reform, or some amazing third party candidate that manages to break through I believe the entire system and how it functions is just going to continue to grind to a halt.
I honestly believe sensable people CAN disagree but come to points of consensus. But the two parties dictating the actions and funding of most politicians are not sensable people. They are just entities which exist with only the goal of protecting and propegating their agendas. We need to remove those rigid and fixed agendas from the system and let PEOPLE operate inside the system that was created again.
I don't have all the answers as to how. But I do know until that's achieved we're likely to not really advance as a nation in the way we once did.
I would say Referendum, but I fear that the religious will vote for the corporation anyways, because they will believe anything they utter from their advertisement agencies. "Jesus wants Coca-cola to be successful, and Michelin tire too."
It is truly sad that our country is now run as much on emotional fervor as it is on pragmatic thought. Whatever your beliefs about our country, it would be really great if they were based on reason rather than fear, anger, and faux patriotism ("I love my country, and now I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears like a 6 year old so I can't hear any more discussion about it").
Concerning the electoral college, one of the points brought up earlier, I wrote an editorial piece for the Atlanta Journal Constitution back in 1996. After crunching the numbers, I came to the conclusion that a candidate in a 2 person race could win 27.2 % of the popular vote and STILL WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! Granted, the scenario is unlikely, but doesn't that fact alone inform you that our electoral system is not nearly representative enough?
The U. S. Constitution allows for revisions, it's called Constitutional Amendments. Over the years, we have had several amendments, most of them have been an incredible furtherance of freedom and liberty for all individuals. While amending the Constitution is a long and arduous process, it ultimately protects the individual against mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Let's not forget the United States is not a democratic nation, one man one vote, but a republic, rule of law. This is all aimed at protecting the individual rights of citizens, not the rights of the majority over the minority.
And, amending the constitution should be difficult. As for one man one vote: three foxes and two chickens vote for what's for dinner...
The Constitution is absolutely outdated. Anyone who thinks the needs of the people in the 21st century are the same as those in the 18th century is pig-headed and/or just plain ignorant. I'm afraid I don't have enough time to provide 3 good examples at this time. But restructuring of our governmental system has to be the #1 priority. As it stands, it just doesn't work.
There is osme merit to what you say. As I wrote in another post the founders used an idealized ntoion of the Roman Republic with its checks and balances. However, the myriad of checks and balances in the Roman Republic caused government gridlock which did not enable them to act decivelyon the issues of their day. The inability of ancient Rome to solve its problems because of political gridlock allowed the rise of the Caesars. But ti is always a gamble that the creaiton of a new constitution might create something worse.
The founders wrote the Constitution with an idealized concept of the Roman Republic in mind with its checks and balances. The House is the popular assembly representing the people. The Senate represents the States as political entities. The Presidency was not intended to be an office representing the people but an office representing the collective states fuctioning as the governor of governors as it were. Thus the Electoral College was created to represent the States and in the case of a tie vote in the Electoral College, even the delegations in the House of Representatives are to vote singularily as a state. The Constitution is actually clear, Presidential Electors are chosen by the States by whatever means they choose. Historically that has been by popular vote but a state is free to change that. Congress gets involved when the votes are counted and can vote to count them or not if there is some kind of irregularity. Or it can, as Congress did in 1877, create an Electoral Commission. When the votes are cast the Electoral votes come under the control of the Federal Government. But until then it is strictly a state affair. That is why in my opinion, the Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act in 2000 in Bush vs Gore. The dispute was for Florida to decide by its different branches. The Florida Legislature was discussing the possibility of it selecting the Electors which they had a right to do (since it was a Republican Legislature they still would have been Bush electors). The Supreme Court intervened on the basis of the voting rights act forcing them to use the popular vote but the US Constitution does not require this. The government bodies of Florida should have decided how to resolve their dispute and then only after the votes were cast does the federal government through the Congress decide whether to accept them or not. Which brings me to my last point. The White House and Congress are a check and balance on each other. Where are the check and balance on the Supreme Cour? Constitutional review is an assumed power of the Court, assumed by John Marshall, the First Chief Justice. Although there is some logic to that, it is assumed and not spelled out in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court can make errors but the only recourse to correct it is a subsequent Supreme Court but with life time appointements this doesn't happen often. Here is where we can think about revisions to the Constitution. should we even have a Supreme Court or let decisions about constitutionality or enforceability be decided by a consensus or majority of lower courts. The Senate could assume more judical powers otherwise reserved for the Suprme Court. Perhaps terms for the Justices rather than lifetime appointments. Lets face it the notion that they are not partisan is a joke. Thats my thoughts on where the Constitution could be revised.
While the founders were influenced by the Roman Republic, their understanding was flawed. The Government of Rome was essentially an oligarchy with Senate by family right and dominance of the plebs except thru the tribuneship. This led to multiple wars and insurrections before marius, sulla , ceasar et al brought it totally down. Much like todays senate and corprate overlords are doing. Nice argumenthowever.
I concur. That is why I said they had an idealized notion of the Roman Republic. It is true the issue in Rome was the dispute between the Patrician and Plebians but that is why the Roman Senate was intended to be balanced by the Popular Assemblies. That is what gave rise to the idealized notion of checks and balances, and divisions of power, so that the tribune of the people could veto the senatorial consultation. The civil wars resulted from the inability of the republican government to resolve the conflict between patrician and plebian.
Our government is a trilateral organization – three branches intended to hold each other in check. It is not simply checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches as you state. The Judicial branch is intended to hold the other branches in check to ensure that the laws of the nation are consistent and that the actions of the administration are within the legal grounds of the overarching national laws (of which the Constitution is the cornerstone). The Judicial branch is similarly held in check by the executive branch, who nominate the members of the bench, and the legislative branch who vote to confirm those nominations. The intent of the judicial branch as a whole (and the Supreme Court, specifically) is that there should be some sort of balance of opinions within its midst, and that they should not be controlled by one particularly party (which is what would result if they actually had to campaign for their positions). The balance of power continues, however, in the right that the legislative branch has to remove a member of the bench through the act of impeachment if that member violates their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Imagine if we simply tossed aside the Constitution with its balance of power between the three branches of government, let alone its balance of power between the rights of the union and the rights of the individual states. Which do you suppose would occur first, total anarchy of the citizenry, or the rise to power of our own benevolent dictator. Remember, Germany considered some of the same logic for overriding their laws in the 1930s and what did it get them a decade later?
You make a sound traditional argument for what is supposed to be a check and balance on teh Supreme Court. However, the appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate is a good example of how partisan the Supreme Court can be. With life time appointments sweeping chnages can occur based upon the decision of nine people. Now I do not agree with popularly elecgting judges that would make them even more partisan. I only throw out suggestions. The one I would like to explore more is a consensus or majority opinion of the collective lower courts.
the second Amendment is my favorite!!!!
Here... Here...
GOD BLESS AMERICA...
-+- -+-
What is this? You think your buttering us up to the idea that changing our United States Constitution is an acceptable idea? .... You even conceive the notion and you dishonor the millions of people who died to protect it. The past two administrations have already tried to give parts of the constitution interpretations that dilute it of any real meaning. Now the media chimes in....Lets sway your vote America!
Hate to break it to you IronRider, but the constitution has been changed before... 27 times to be exact (although the first 10 are what you would call The Bill of Rights). it took a change to the constitution to eliminate slavery and give those former slaves the same god-given right to vote that white men had. it took a change to the constitution to give women the right to vote. the constitution is a living document that the founders designed with the idea that we can change it to adapt to the world. they could not forsee everything that was going to happen in the world, so they gave us article 5 which lays out the amendment process.
sorry to rain on your "never change the document" parade with reality.
The electoral college does not need to be looked at, states can do this on their own right now, states have been doing this with their National Popular Vote movement. Even to updated the constitution to do this, you need the states support, they can call a constitutional convention to get this done if they so desired.
Many of the powers people are calling for here are within their states rights, we're a system of Federalism, a limited power national government and states with more authority. There is no reason for a national constitution with a right to healthcare, a state can do this on their own. California has talked for a long time about doing a state single-payer solution, and they're within their constitutional right to do so. But, those same rules may not apply the same in Alaska where you have isolated villages hundreds of miles from anywhere else, and limited travel access. There is a reason those are not national powers, because we're a large, and very diverse country, and one-size fits all rules are when the Constitution tries to avoid. That's the beauty of states powers and Federalism.
If we replace the Constitution, kiss goodbye to the Bill of Rights and say hello to the Christian States of America.
What issues would I address? I would clarify the bright line between church and state. I would restrict warrantless searches further and make the search rules apply to electronic communication of all types. I would narrow the meaning of "public use" in Amendment V (eminent domain). I would ban coercive interrogation under all circumstances (Supremes recently narrowed V sharply).
Sorry, I forgot to mention women, and the rights of noncitizens.
cb
The US needs to be split up... it's too large and unwieldy. The Constitution could then be reconfigured / rewritten to suit the respective citizenry.
June 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm>>>>>>>>>you must be inhaling that Zakaria smoke.....
Hey, we can remove freedom of the press during the revision and eliminate stupid controversy. What do you think?
I LOVE the number of people on this site that believe that all corporate donations for political campaigns should be eliminated–but what of those individuals and organizations that are not corporations, but contribute similar-sized, if not larger, donations to corporate campaigns? Should they be limited as well? Personally, I think there are two possible solutions to campaign finance reform:
1. Limit each contributors donation to no more than $50 per candidate per election cycle. Then, any corporate and other such contributions would have less impact and the people could have a greater voice in the elections.
2.Have one giant pool of money that all contributors donate to and that any candidate has access to if he/she wants to run for federal office. Any such pool of money could then be divided evenly between the candidates running in a given election.
Yes, I realize that there are problems with both "solutions." But, someone has to start thinking outside of the box if we truly want to see campaign finance reform in our lifetimes.
A better solution to campaign finance would simply be to make it illegal for any candidate to accept money from any private business, non-profit, or organization that receives federal money. The problem with our campaign finance system is that it essentially supports legalized money laundering on both sides of the aisle, which then make candidates beholden to those organizations. We give money to teachers unions, which then go and spend money giving to candidates, or giving subsidies to oil companies which then makes candidates mouth pieces for them.
Either we stop completely stop subsidizing all private and non-federal organizations, or disallow candidates from accepting their money. That would clean up campaign finance extremely quickly. You wouldn't even have to re-write the constitution to do it.
NO!!! As you said it is an extrordinary document. The beauty of it is that it CAN be amended. If changes,corrections, or additions need to be made that is how you do it. Amendments. You are however incorrect regarding your statment about the Electoral College and the Senate. Rick countered you senate argument well. To counter your Electoral College statement, the purpose of it is to prevent someone from rising to power simply on popularity. Like a Hitler or Mussolini. I know those are extreme examples but that is the point of using them. If that offends,how does the term President J Lo sound to you?? or President Bieber?
The sad thing is the voting populace is who would vote for Beiber. need proof? check out the number of votes for American Idol when it was in it's prime compared to off year elections around that time. President Beiber may be a bit of a stretch,... but Senator Beiber may be a reality.... ugh...
Ditch the Constitution? I don't think so. Our founding fathers were pretty smart. They managed to write a constitution that is relevant more than 200 years later. I don't have nearly as much faith in what our current leaders would produce.
I am hardly a Constitutionalist, but I see no reason to make sweeping changes in the Constitution. Perhaps we need to realign our country instead along the principles that have guided us for so many years. I agree the Electoral College should go away. It was only designed because there was no mass communications back in the day. It was not about equality of states and all that nonsense. But to make massive changes to the Constitution? Do it through the system we already have, amendments. If some of these things are so important, petition your states and petition your Congressmen to get an amendment passed. It's really pretty simple.
1st amendment: Make Habeas Corpus un-suspendable, 2nd: Define marriage as an "establishment of religion" and as such that "congress shall make no law respecting" it – replace it in gov't language solely with civil unions that will be made available to everyone. These "civil unions" would in effect encompass all gov't related business that is now encompassed by civil unions and marriages. Civil (or religiously based) marriage would still be at the discretion of religious bodies that could, on their own decide whether or not people can be "married." Thus the gov't doesn't lose revenue, everyone is afforded the same rights and privileges by the gov't, and the concept of "marriage" is defined not by the government but by religion itself. 3rd: Abolish non-publicly funded campaigns (i.e. no corporate donations), and lobbyists.
Agreed.
1. Permanent separation of church and state. Period.
2. End the electoral college. Positively useless in this day and age. It does not accurately reflect the people's choice (Gore v. Bush).
3. Allocate the number of congressional delegates to each state proportionally.
I agree with your #1.. i figured that since we really should already have it, and don't, that we'd need to by hyper-specific.
Well i agree with all three really..
Unfortunately most people look at the constitution as some people look at the bible, as some sort of divine document never to be questioned. We've been brainwashed for generations into thinking it's this perfect thing, when it has many flaws when considering the huge difference between our society today and the one when it was written.
The founders' intent was to protect LIBERTY not DEMOCRACY. Each part of the federal gov't was appointed by DIFFERENT constituencies.
The House by direct popular vote
The Senate by State legislatures.
The presidency by the Electoral College.
the Supreme Court by the President
In other words they were trying to keep the sources of political power divided up, so that a single constituency would not control everything, because that would be a threat to liberty. The founders were wiser than we are, so let's not mess around with what they created without some serious soul searching and thoughful debate.
Agreed, but I think the point of this article is to invoke soul searching and thoughtful debate. The point is that as brilliant as the founders were, they could not have foreseen the state of affairs that exists today. For example, we had to pass an amendment to abolish slavery. I wouldn't suggest some irrational, unfounded attempt to amend or re-write something as genius as the constitution, but I wouldn't be opposed to hearing ideas on how to re-work some of its provisions that have proven outdated over the years. Obviously, that process would have to be subject to the highest scrutiny, but it isn't that outlandish of an idea.
I think it would be a waste of time since the ruling class is going to do what they want anyways. But if we were:
1. No anchor babies.
2. Legalize the green goodness.
3. Allow citizens to film law enforcment.
Let's take the greatest living document ever produced and really screw it up by letting a whole bunch of half baked idiots, better known as politicans, re-write it. 'Cause lets face it, does anyone out there think the folks in Congress ( a/k/a the "Puppets of the Deep Pockets") are going to allow any of the unwashed masses have input. Hardly! In case any one forgot, we do have a mechanism to revise it, they're called amendments.
If you need proof that having people suggest ideas over the internet for a new constitution is a bad idea, all you have to do is read the comments on this article.
Truth. This is the most accurate comment here.
Oh and while I'm posting, I may as well say the Constitution should be re-written to make me and my birthline the supreme rulers of the universe to be hailed and beloved far and wide and paid tribute to with 10% of the GNP annually.
How about an amendment that sets up a specific process for validating the success or failure of a particular year's Congress. Actionable items that must be completed for that Congress to get a passing grade.
If that year's Congress fails to mee its goals, then all the congressmen associated with that congress gets a "Black mark" or a foul. Any congressman that has 2 "Black marks" can no longer run for re-election. Any congressman that has 4 "black marks" gets recalled.
This way the congressmen will fill bound to actually DO the job that we sent them to Washington to do.
Lord Vokk
Yes, our Constitution's Amendments could use an update. Define the power of The Fed. Get rid of the Electorial College. Make balanced annual budgets the norm unless a majority-approved emergency situation exists. Define the power of the Judicial Branch. Limit or restrict corporate campaign contributions to ensure that the concerns of the citizens are more represented than corporate dollars. Improve the wording in sections to ensure clarity. The balance of Executive and Legislative Branches is great pretty much the way it is. Add line-item veto to the power of the Executive Branch in order to limit excessive and unrelated spending within individual bills. Empower the states more. Address the illegal immigration issue. Clarify the common rights for basic retirement and medical benefits to our legal citizens. We could make real reforms to ensure the properity of our country long into the distant future. The biggest challenge is how to get bi-partisanship, personal greed, and corporate interests out of the effort? Iceland got a majority of citizen feedback as measured by Social Media? That would be just plain scary...have you read the crazy, clearly uneducated comments in this blog thread and others? Conversely, the majority of Icelanders are well educated and well traveled.
I'm appalled at how much "ad hominem" debate (attacking the person rather than the idea) is going on here. Just this morning I was instructing my "moot trial" students on how to identify "fallacious" arguments. I used as examples how our politicians (of all parties and all sides) frequently resort to personal attacks to make their points - but I'm seeing the same thing from my fellow citizens who would criticize our politicians for ignoring the issues. Shame.
Moving on, the big issue seems to be how we elect our presidents. That the electoral college is probably of little relevance today by inaccurately tallying our votes for the presidential candidates is reprehensible. The original reason for the electoral college was to negotiate a settlement with the southern states by awarding them electoral college votes equal to the number of citizens in their states makes it all the more reprehensible. That the African American was counted as a 3/5th citizen but with no vote, gave the southern states influence and power much beyond their true voting populations. This undue power given to the smaller states is testified to by the fact that our first four presidents all came from the slave-holding state of Virginia. But, I also agree with others that this outmoded and unfair system of electing the president can be changed without rewriting the Constitution or offering up an amendment. So, let's do it.
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote."
It isn't supposed to be. That's precisely why Congress was structured into 2 houses. The Senate allows for every state to be represented equally regardless of their population, while the House of Representatives gives more weight to the states with more inhabitants. And to become a law, a bill has to pass both houses. This ensures that anything passed into law does not outrightly favor small states over large, or vice versa. The Constitution was setup with all these sort of problems in mind, and that's why it has remained the foundation of the greatest nation on Earth for as long as it has.
I'm amazed that an "intellectual" like Fareed is given so much weight when he clearly has no understanding of the methodology, history, or intent of the Constitution.
First off, we're not a democracy. We're a republic with a system that is supposed to have dual sovreignty. The Constitution and the form of government we have was intended to establish a central government with clearly defined powers, mostly centered around the creation of currency, establishment of interstate commerce, and the dealings with foreign powers. Just about everything else was left to the States.
The House is the direct voice of the people and the one place where the popular vote is given its voice. The Senate was to be a part of Congress where the Senators would be appointed representatives from the State and NOT elected into their position (a huge mistake to change it from this).
The electoral college exists in order to keep presidents from simply campaigning in States with large populations. It's intent was to give small States a say in every election and to not permit candidates from completely omitting large swaths of the nation.
This republic we live in and this form of government was created to limit government and maximize the rights of the individual to rise up and get as far as they could with their own work and effort.
The Federalist Papers were written to defend the Constitution and convince New York to back it and the new form of government.
The Constitution has it's own system to enact changes and institute amendments to let it "change with the times." Some of these changes have been to our detriment, such as the taxation of personal income and the popular voting for Senators. Other changes have been necessary in order to abolish abhorrent practices such as slavery. The Constitition is more relevant today than it has ever been.
We would not be in the trouble we're in as a country if the Federal government actually limited itself to the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 since it was never intended to have a role in every single aspect of our lives.
More government = less freedom.
Less government = more freedom.
If this wasn't the case, then all dictatorships would be thriving and wonderful places to live.
Government stiflles innovation and kills individual liberties.
You have a right to equal protection under the law, not to equal outcomes.
Study up, Fareed, for you clearly don't know anything about why our Constitution is the way it is. Start by reading the Federalist Papers.
Well stated Ray.
Hear Hear!
Very interesting .... Yes the Constitution needs reworking, but who and how. I can see a civil war coming from certain factors. is english made official, does christianity get to dominate, who decides how each state is represented. Let's be clear, change needs to be made, but be very careful and very, very afraid. Most "citizens" won't participate and the rabid minority who do will impose a very strict and restrictive government in their image.
1. Term limits for Congress that will remove all current members and elect all new Senators and House members.
2. Eliminate corporate contributions of any kind to a person or persons holding public office.
Campaign Finance – Corporation should not be allowed to contribute. Only inidividual voters with a set limit.
Education and Health should be a right not a privelege.
Government should regulate, safety for common good and business malpractises.
Government can not dictate morality. They are not good at it.
Government should stay out of social and cultural issues.
Free Trade with the world.
No democracy spread agenda. No military intervention unless directly threatened.
Constitution is a sacred document, but it must be updated. 1) Axe Electoral College 2) Revise Senate 3) Require All Citizens to Vote 4) Ditch – Born Here = Automatic citizenship 5) Institute a Murder = Death Penalty, Stealing = Loss of Limb clause to drop crime rate. 6) (MOST IMPORTANTLY) States who contribute the most to Federal Tax Revenue should recieve the same proportion back.
The problem isn't the Constitution isn't good enough, the problem is that it is ignored by our politicians!
Fortunately our Constitution has a way of changing without being replaced. I think we need an amendment that stops corporate and organizational donations to political campaigns and promotion of political ideals. This conduct recently unleashed by the Supreme court is drowning and manipulating the voice of the people. Certainly until then, I would not do anything so perilous as proposing a more sweeping change.
All that needs to happen is Corporations should have their status ans an individual taken away. They should have never been granted that status in the first place.
Anchor babies. This is a far different time then when the country was in it's infancy. People able to break the law to get here in order to have an anchor baby needs to be prevented.
1) The Electoral College shall be modified so that each state's delegates are determined by the popular vote times the percentage of eligible voters having voted in the previous national election, with the product rounded up to the next whole number. (This will favor states that encourage large turnouts, regardless of party, encouraging a robust democracy.)
2) Laws shall be limited to a single topic, except in the case of budget/funding bills that shall only legislate budget/funding decisions. (To prevent extraneous "gotcha" provisions either party can use against the other.)
3) Constitutional amendments may have expiration dates.
4) Presidential signing statements shall have no force of law.
5) Earmarks shall be allowed but the total dollar amount of all earmarks allotted for a single Congressional district or State each year shall not exceed the Federal tax revenue for that Congressional district or State for the previous year. (i.e., you can get the pork, but within limits.) Earmarks that benefit more than one State shall not be limited.
6) Patents and copyrights held by U.S. citizens shall have their enforceable duration doubled. Patents and copyrights held by non-citizens or corporations with less than 50% of their assets in the United States shall not have the enforceable duration of their patents or copyrights extended, nor shall they be extendable.
7) Supreme Court Justices shall have a mandatory retirement age of 85 years.
8) Congress shall make no law restricting the privacy of individual citizens.
Sorry, last item should be a separate:
8) Congress shall make no law restricting the privacy of individual citizens.
Wow you have some great ideas. I would change a few though...
1. Get rid of the electoral college, and have the president chosen by popular vote, but have a tiered voting system where voters have 3 (or however many) choices. First choice gets 5 points, Second gets 3, Third gets 1. Thus, rather than winding up with the swinging pendulum of politics, we may finally elect some moderates...! Presidents that might not be many people's first choice, but are considered "Acceptable" by a majority of Americans (hopefully more than 50%+1)
3) All laws should have sunset dates except Constitutional Amendments. Call it a "trial period" where it can be experienced and monitored and determined if its a worthwhile program, then it can be reviewed and extended when the expiration approaches, or allowed to expire. Votes for extension should be explicit. This would force politicians to use the Amendment process for popular programs (that's why its there, after all!)
YES! Get rid of the electoral college!! It can't be that one candidate has 51% of the vote and STILL loses the presidential election! So much for "we are the people"....
I had a professor at Vanderbilt University that said you can never get rid of the Electoral College unless you want to get rid of the Senate too. Fareed, you are a smart person, but you write a lot of ignorant stuff. First, you demonized Netanyahu as the biggest impediment to peace without even mentioning what his concerns are or acknowledging the factual reality of rockets being launched into Israel. Then, you basically called him stupid by saying that he didn't understand modern warfare when you claimed that he was afraid of an army invasion from the Palestinians. He cited rockets and mortars in his speeches. Last time I checked Netanyahu was a soldier, and you never were. NOW, you complain about the electoral college which was created to protect smaller states from being outvoted by larger states and thus making their votes irrelevant. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the votes of people from smaller states and less populated areas from being dominated by huge populations concentrated in a few areas. This is called protection of minority rights and similar sections of the Constitution protect minority rights from the will of the majority. This is why people move to the United States. The Electoral College was an ingenius way to make sure that majority and minority voices were accounted for in the election.
America is a REPUBLIC Not a democracy! Democracy is to elect officials and decide legislation. Democracy is MOB Rule! Ben Franklin warned us ..."we gave you a Republic, if you can keep it!!"
"Over time, whoever controls the money system controls the nation."
We NEED to update the monetary system and return it to WE THE PEOPLE not a private, elite, cartel of Foreign interests!
1. Federal Campaign Funding
2. Political Representatives prohibited from accepting money or gifts of any type from any entity for any reason and prohibited from accepting employement from any federal contractor for five years after leaving office.
2. Deploying US troops for any reason not directly related to protecting US territory or citizens prohibited without 3/4 ratification by all the states.
They need to get rid of the amendment which allows foreigners born here citizenship. This was done during the reconstruction for the former slaves but is now used by any illegal alien.
Eliminate primary election. Replace them with "instant primaries" where we can rank all the candidates in order on a single national election day that is also an official holiday.
Better yet, eliminate elections entirely, replace them with a system more like jury duty. Whatever kind of elections we have, the special interests will always figure out how to buy them. With no elections, they'd have to figure out how to control random chance instead
.
While we are trying to prevent plutocrats from buying control of the country, let's also severely restrict the power Congress has to actually do anything. Make Congress a goal setting body. Make implementing most goals be left to the states and local governments. If a congressman isn't worth the return on investment, they won't get bought as frequently.
Or if you don't like such radical ideas, let's make failure to reduce the deficit trigger term limits. If one batch of congressmen can't cut spending, maybe a completely new batch can.
Lots more ideas here: http://home.comcast.net/~tomhorsley/politics/politics.html
Anyone else think term limits for senators and congressmen/women might be a good idea?
Yes
This is what you expect from a socialist. The constitution prevents them from total federal control, which they want.
Oh, and NO MORE anchor babies... I worked hard to come here! I don't want people pressing out babies just so they can suck our system!
I'd go further and so no more immigrants (even ones that worked hard to get here). I think our population density is about perfect as it is. I don't see any reason to give citizenship to anyone from outside for any reason.
For those of you who keep claiming the writer is calling for an overhaul and brand new constitution, go back and reread before you get all bent out of shape.
His exact words: I'm just suggesting we talk about a few revisions.
Boom.
Thank goodness someone read else read the article..
someone else read the article*
I do not believe that Zakaria is suggesting that we abolish the Consitution as it stands today, but rather attempting to incite debate as to pertinent amendments that would make it better. I believe that many people misunderstand that term limites are inherently undemocratic, but instead many patriots above this comment seek limiting senators as a way to increase representation. While there are several benefits to incumbency, term limits would most likely cause moer ahrm than good, forcing a new wave of senators with no experience in national legislation nor interactment with foreign nations. The benefits to no term limits increase the quality of work that many senators and representatives do. They create relationships that forge better laws and relationships with other countries.
However, many things in the US could stand to be amended in the Consitution. In order to be settled once and for all, the electoral college must be reformed with an Amendment that creates a national electoral system for electing the president.
I merely encourage those who comment to consider that Zakaria wanted to insight debate, not some sort of anarchy or criticize the US government.
USA should do exactly what Holland does. Seems we're the only western country, that doesn't get themselves in trouble and export 1/2 what USA does while we're 253 times smaller than the USA.
Let us not fool ourselves into thinking we could improve upon the U.S. Constitution if it were re-written today. There is the amendment process for changes. The U.S. Constitution is the longest-surviving in the world today that is still in practice. It is worth pointing out that Fareed Zakaria is not an American by birth and the founders would probably consider a foreigner's suggestion to re-write the American Constitution to be rather suspect.
Mr Zakaria,
Its clear that you don't understand the issue when you say things like "(The Senate) is not one-man one-vote". If you understood what the founders were trying to accomplish, you'd realize that that is precisely the point.
America is not a democracy, and that's a good thing, because even the people can be a tyrant. Its essential that the minority is protected from the abuse of the majority, because ultimately we are all minorities. We are the ultimate minority – the individual.
That's why our government was established as it was – a federation of states, each autonomous unto itself (at least until the Civil War) where people could move between them and settle in the environment that suited them best. This is ideal, and thus states were instituted with equal representation in the Senate so that different people of different states with different moral codes would be protected from being railroaded by populous states. The people of California should have NO SAY about how Wisconsin is run – and I challenge you to respond with a reason why they should. That is why the Senate is balanced among members – so small states running "unpopular" experiments (say – by Californian standards) can block attempts at passing laws to shut down those experiments. Its a measure to ensure that the independence and sovereignty of the states remains unhindered to run their own states and their own experiments in accordance with the wishes of their own people.
Healthcare is not a right. It's a service. Unless you figure out how to make doctors and nurses slaves who work for free. That's why service is garbage in most countries where healthcare is a "right". There's a doctor shortage because docs are government workers with zero incentive to give good service or care.
Education is a State issue and not a power for the Federal government. Federal power over education is a threat and it is also not Constitutional. We had incredible progress as a nation, producing amazing scholars, scientists, and intellectuals, before the Federal government ever got involved in education. The only thing that the DOE is good for is to empower teacher's unions and dictate propaganda to children.
No Child Left Behind is a perfect example of a terrible program. My wife is a school teacher. She sees the result of touchy feely liberal policy on a daily basis. Kids aren't allowed to be flunked. Mediocrity is rewarded while hard work isn't. Superintendents are encouraged to pad statistics and put students into courses they don't belong in. Graduation rates are viewed favorabliy with no question as to the quality of the knowledge and ability of the graduates. Kids get passed in classes for merely showing up and get automatic credit of 50% for merely turning in work regardless of quality. THAT is the result of government involvement and centralized dictation of "standards".
And yes, George Bush was a progressive who advocated big government solutions to State problems.
I think many of you are missing the point. The problem is the winner takes all system of assigning electoral college votes, not the electoral college itself. I see a lot of right-leaning and small state posters saying that they would be hurt if we moved to a popular vote. That is not necessarily the case.
Take California for instance. There are plenty of Republican voters in California. Really only coastal California is hardcore Democrat. But California Republicans might as well throw their votes into the wind right now because there are not enough of them to get a majority Republican vote for the state and thus to get all the electoral college votes. But, if we revised the system so that electoral college votes were allocated proportional to the vote in the state then Republicans would get California votes in the presidential election. The same thing would happen in NY (only NYC metro is Democrat), IL (only Chicago votes Dem), etc.
Right now if you live in a state where your political affiliation is not the majority you are basically wasting your vote on election day. A republican in California, a democrat in Alabama....why shouldn't those votes count?
The only reason some want a new constitution is because some cry babies are not getting their selfish ways. Forget them. They have been the wrong voice for america for far too long.
Means USA could do 126,5 times better when you American would start living like the Dutch. We want NY back.
Dear Fareed,
For your information, we do have a revision mechanism for the Constitution. It's called the Amendment process, and it was designed deliberately to make changing the Constitution difficult. This is NOT something to be taken lightly, as you would render it to the whims of the masses expressing their impulses via Facebook or Twitter – what nonsense.
Before you again compare us to Iceland (what absurdity) or any other nation, perhaps you should consider that were it not for the U.S. Constitution as it is presently written and the thousands of American servicemen whou have fought and died to uphold its principles, the "Icelands" of the world may not even exist today, let alone have the luxury of considering changing anything.
"...any talk of revising or revisiting the American constitution is, of course, seen as heresy."
"...our constitution has been revised 27 times."
One of these observations negates the other.
Not sure this could be done here. As a nation we are just far to split on to many issues. As a proud liberal I would want to find a way to get money out of politics. Get corporate, union and other money out of the pockets of politicians and thus allow them to actually represent the people. Never will happen. I would like to see a revew on language for guns... My goodness the founding fathers I'm sure never thought about 16 shot 9mm semi autos with 30 round clips for protections, but a lot of that comes back to the money (nra) in politics. Aborition? OMG there is a can of worms... Taxing churchs that do get involved in politics... Definition of Treason whereas American Companies, CEO's, Wall Street trade the safety and security of America for greed... Set specific words as to the usage of our military.. .wow both sides of the asle love to use our military everywhere they can and can't truly remember the last time (WWII?) that it had to do with national defence... national health care, I can go on and on... will never happen... but interesting through.
Companies leave America because government makes it difficult to stay here. You stifle the personal freedom of the people who run businesses by limiting their ability to set up shop wherever they wish. Want them to stay? Quit strangling them with regulations. Want to get rid of their influence? Quit meddling in their buisness which encourages lobbying. It sets up crony capitalism, which isn't really a free market.
What you advocate is tyranny.
You're quite off base with the Senate argument, my friend. I'm with you on some of this, to an extent, but the Senate argument misses the point entirely. The whole reason every state gets two Senators with equal power is to ensure that the bigger states can't bully the smaller states. Your argument, that it should represent population, would completely annihilate the checks and balances put into place for the legislative branch. We already have a branch of Congress that represents the population. It's called the House of Representatives. Changing the Senate to a similar setup would beg for tyranny of the majority. Please, put more thought into things like this before you spew them out into the mainstream. You're putting ideas into thousands, if not millions, people's heads that just don't make any sense. You, as a CNN correspondent with an extremely large and visible platform, should be more responsible.
Whats wrong with you Americans you should value what you have here, go abroad and see what it is like,
i emigrated here and earned my citizinship just celebrated my 43rd year being a citizen, and very very proud to be one.
leave the constitution alone, you just dont know what freedom is, loose it then you will complain, i say people who do not
not like it here go to another country and live there. BELIEVE ME YOU WILL BE BACK IN A HURRY. Wake up America
Pass a new Reapportionment Act. There should be 677 or so Representatives in the House in 2012. Read Federalist Paper 58. Repeal the 22nd Amendment. Read Federalist Papers 71 and 72. Pass a new Amendment to the Constitution that Specifies that in all cases US Senators are appointed by a States Governor and confirmed by that states legislature. Specify a time limit for that to happen before the President can appoint a Senator. Read Federalist Papers 62 and 63.
Amendment #1– All members of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be allowed no more than two terms. If its good enough for the President, its good enough for them.
Amendment #2–All budgets must be balanced with a declared state of war being the only exception. If we need additional revenue that ALL Americans will be assessed a surcharge to go along with the income tax they pay with the mandated proviso that ALL Americans pay something. Just as there is a minimum tax to be sure that the wealthy pay something, there will be a minimum tax to be sure that everyone pays at least something–no exceptions
Amendment #3–There will be no penalty for achieving success. We will no longer have the situation where the person that becomes educated, works hard and is successful will be assessed taxes while those who choose not to become educated, do not work hard and are not successful, spend all their money and then qualify for benefits while the person who saved and invested and did all that was expected, gets nothing.
This is a silly article, unless it is designed to be a leftist seed planting experiment. Mr Zakaria may have his marching orders, hmm, why don't you write an article about abolishing the US Constitution, just in a sort of "what if" kind of way? suggested his boss. Oh, good idea sir! If we get enough positive response, we might just push the envelope a bit further. Look, you bunch of clowns, the US Constitution is one of the most intelligent, absolutely incredible legal documents ever developed in the history of the world and I don't give a crap if the flush toilet had been invented yet. It is a brilliant work, living and breathing. If we want to make some changes to it, fine, that is what amendments are designed to do. And no, I don't want to leave the creation of a new constitution up to the general public. Have you walked around in a local Wal-Mart recently??? If you haven't and you'd like to truly understand why our country is likely, Terminal, an observing stroll through China's number one export distribution store will help bring a lot of clarity.
I agree that changes need to be made, and that's why we have the amendments. Unfortunately, some have been used to take AWAY rights rather than add them. Certain citizens are granted full or more rights than others. Also, the electoral college is obsolete and quite dangerous at this point in time. More discussion is needed, and the matter should be put directly to the people, if we are to move more closely to a democracy. Oftentimes our so-called representatives ignore our wishes and do exactly what they want; that's not representation or true democracy. Maybe some discussion/amendment regarding representation, true representation, needs to be encouraged as well.
The Senate was designed that way because Southern States who had fewer people (slaves were only counted as 3/5ths a person) didn't want the Northern states to have too much power. That's why we have a Bicameral system. Anybody who has taken an entry level Political Science course should know that.
I think its a brilliant idea. It needs to change with the times, and additions need to be made in the realm of the right to decide what to do with a persons own body, and sexual orientation. Its time.
I think the resulting discussion has pointed out, what I think, is the main problem with the constituion - its outdated reliance on "state's rights". As has been pointed out, the constitution was written in the time of the horse and buggy. They were mostly hoping to allow each area to maintain their own culture and values. But we have grown beyond that. We're a national county that embraces our national identity. We have corporations and banks that have offices in every state. We all watch the same entertainment, listen to the same music, and visit the same websites. Yes, I argue for more centralization of the government and the reduction of state's rights. The only reason anyone argues for state's rights anymore is because it's easier for major corporations to manipulate state government and avoid regulation.
See, I would actually argue that we need more reliance on states rights now and less on national centralized power. The fear of corporations going unregulated are unfounded, as much of that is established under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. More dependance on states rights would actually show more results more quickly, as you would have states that are more willing to take on responsibility and take action without fear of federal reprisal, and if results were good, it would spread faster to other states. When results are bad, you only have a minority feeling the pain instead of an entire nation as well. The idea is that states competing against each other for business and citizens.
States rights are only dividing this country.
Fareed, you are an ignorant jackass. Our Constitution is what made us the greatest nation in the world! Despite what your lackey Obama says, or apologizes for.
We don't have anyone intelligent or wise enough to write a document like our Constitution. Zakaria you really need to read Democracy In America and then you may understand why things are set up as they are. It was brilliant and the fact that it is still flexible enough and has survived as long as it has is a testiment to it's relevance.
In no way shall the interpretation or understanding of this constitution be fixed as of the time of ratification, nor at any time thereafter.
The Senate protects us from "mob rule"? You mean democracy? Yes, New York and California would have more say if we abolished the Senate, but it would be proportional and therefore appropriate. They wouldn't control the discourse entirely— the two states only make up 18% of the U.S. population—but states like Wyoming (0.17% of the population) wouldn't have disproportional say in the Federal system, just jurisdiction over state matters.
The electoral college is an antiquated joke, the Supreme Court hijacked their powers in Marbury v Madison (which Jefferson loathed, by the way)...we can't keep venerating our broken system because we grew up pledging allegiance to the flag. It is more un-American to accept a system that subverts the will of the people in favor of political parties and corporations, when it has the potential to be such a leading light on the world stage.
Trash the constitution. Its groundbreaking ideas are still relevant today, but we could keep those and improve it with insights from the last 200 years. We can make a constituition that the founders would be proud of. More importantly, one that we can be proud of.
The 'government' just steals money and represses people with ignorance taught in schools and laws to prevent people from doing anything. I was looking over the santa cruz count sheriff arrest logs online, they're just busting a few drunks here and there, not the big cases on the news, and it appears they're taking bribes and causing crimes too as job protection and so they can keep their 'loophole' perks in the laws, along with huge tax based and bribe based payouts and other perks, while ignoring things like 'right to bear arms' (became 'right to ask permissions for primitive weapons') or all the excessive bullshit the laws have become compared to their practice, time for a real change, let people own anything and do what they want with their property, and to stop censoring people and the media as well 'for the children' or for any other reason, that censorship makes showing what they do a crime as well, and talking about them in public is certain death due to their abilities of lying and framing.
No, that would be the greedy corporations.
Site claims this is dublicatE?
The 'government' just steals money and represses people with ignorance taught in schools and laws to prevent people from doing anything. I was looking over the santa cruz count sheriff arrest logs online, they're just busting a few drunks here and there, not the big cases on the news, and it appears they're taking bribes and causing crimes too as job protection and so they can keep their 'loophole' perks in the laws, along with huge tax based and bribe based payouts and other perks, while ignoring things like 'right to bear arms' (became 'right to ask permissions for primitive weapons') or all the excessive bullshit the laws have become compared to their practice, time for a real change, let people own anything and do what they want with their property, and to stop censoring people and the media as well 'for the children' or for any other reason, that censorship makes showing what they do a crime as well, and talking about them in public is certain death due to their abilities of lying and framing.
The whole system is a farce. 535 people to represent 300 million!....... NO balance there! All influenced by corporate donations.
538–don't forget DC
First observation: the constitution recognizes as citizens those born here. We forgot to add: born here legally.
So, first go back 50 years and grandfather in whoever was here at the time (plus any who subsequently came here via our immigration system). Then extend citizenship to their children, grandchildren, etc. in existence today. Anyone else is undocumented and must apply for citizenship.
Next, recognize that Americans are largely on the same page about foreign affairs but divided domestically. Provide that the federal government represents all internationally and must levy a uniform system of taxation and centralized budget for that purpose, but allow it to consist potentially of a confederation of fiscally autonomous domestic blocs, each of which has its own uniform set of regional laws, regulations, taxes and budgets for internal use, according to their own constitutions, which must respect the basic rights under the federal Constitution.. Thus, the West coast and the Northeast could be a high tax, high entitlement bloc, while the Southeast/Midsouth could be low tax, personal responsibility states. Both would be represented internationally by the national federation.
It would be nice to put to bed once and for all the meaning of the right to bear arms.
It would also be nice to resolve that the separation of church, state is a proscription against state preferences in religion, rather than a repudiation of it.
I'd actually like to see a Constitution which recognizes modern media and, while assigning the elected reps the task of precise lawmaking and execution, accords the taxpayer the privilege of assigning his taxes to particular components of the budget. That is, if I owe $20,000, let ME decide which share I want credited to the national defense versus to social programs, international aid, etc. This would be done at the time of e-filing using a secure password.
LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think we should increase the time a person has in office to 8 years and then they should not be allowed to hold office again, it might prevent them from acting with the intrest of being re-elected, i also think that icland has it right no corprate campaign funds. That being said i would like to say the Constitution has done us all very good and probly only needs a few edits.
I believe you need to re-study how the US Government was formed. Also, look up the definitions of Democratic sociseties, and a society that is a Republic. Our founding fathers gave a a "Republic", not a democarcy.If we were a true democracy, then we would all be spending our time reading the bills and voting on them. The common person does not have time for this. Thus, a Republic form of government allows us to vote for individuals to represent us, and vote for us and what is in the best interest of the USA, and her citizens. Our constitution does not need to be revised like so many other nations do, it has lasted over 200 years. It is the only one ever to last that long. But, when as a country we need to make changes to it, such as the slavery issue, or prohibition, than there is a procedure to make those changes. But that is also a very long process, all states would have to ratify the change. So, please go back and re-study the true history and true meaninig behind the US constitution before you say we need to change it.
its like saying just because the bible was written in a time when people rode on camels it should be abolished and is now aobsolete??? the constitution was written by men afraid for their lives yet believeing in divine providence...its an insult to them fareed from your safe and comfortable CNN office to even hint at abolishing that document- Shame on you!!!
We don't need to rewrite the Constitution. We just need the government to obey it! What's the point of rewriting the Constitution if the government doesn't even follow it??
If our Legislative Branch ever "evolves" to be completely proportional to the population of each of the states, I'll be looking forward to the immediate secession of virtually every other state other than California, Texas, and New York. Those states already have far too much influence on our country, which can easily be evidenced by our federal government running its budget into the ground similar to California and New York. No thank you, sir. I'd rather die defending my right to live life the way I see fit than have Liberalforniayork choose those things for me.
My top three Amendments:
1. The Congress shall not have the power to make funding to any state contingent upon that state's acceptance or rejection of any state law. (No more "denying highway funds unless you change your state laws.")
2. Amend the Presidential requirements. A person must have been a US citizen for 35 years in order to be qualified for the position of President. Years spent in the military count double up to the person's actual age. (You've legally been here that long? You're a native).
3. Preservation of Evidence amendment. Destruction of evidence concerning crimes committed by the government or its agents shall constitute admission of guilt; those responsible for the destruction shall face the maximum punishment for the crime. Destruction of evidence that might exonerate a private individual shall constitute admission of that individual's innocence, and admission of guilt for obstruction of justice by the official responsible; those responsible for the destruction shall face the maximum punishment for the crime in question. (No more of this "accidentally deleted the files" BS, no more camera confiscations).
not surprising, coming from a socialist like zakaria. How about we just get people to FOLLOW the constitution before we change it.
american
Fareed, you are an ignorant jackass. Our Constitution is what made us the greatest nation in the world! Despite what your lackey Obama says, or apologizes for.
June 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm>>>>>>>>Please attack the President in a different post!!!
I think the individual states should have their own laws and regulations over everything concerning them. Then have the federal government just to decide war and protection over all the states and keep them all unified.
Imo, Simply making a ballot initiative process available for voters on a federal level (as well as the rest of the states that dont currently have it), would solve the problem of giving more power to the people, as well as allow Fed Government to still oversee topics that the public did not show enough interest in to garner attention for the Initiative process.
Fareed, the institutions you knock as being undemocratic (the U.S. Senate, the electoral college) are what makes us such a long lasting republic. Do you really think a country as large in area as the United States would have lasted as long as it has if it was a pure democracy? Can you name a pure democracy (of any size) that has lasted longer than 50 years?
Just to summarize the posts here. Most people want one of two options;
1. The current constitution amended to reflect the fact that only they are aware of the underlying moral truths in the world.
2. A term limited, proportionally representative, legislatively dominated, legally limited in spending, and legally limited in taxing government that implements the social policy that they believe (insert one or more: God intended/meets humanist standards/is tailored to specifically benefit me). Sort of an absolutist representative government that presumes the moral standards of the poster are the TRUTH.
That is why we have the current system.
Very good. Now you know why the founders had a devil of a time writing the thing to the point that the original version of the constitution sanctioned slavery and counted Afro-Americans only as two-thirds a human being. And they idealized the Roman Republic with its system of checks and balances to the extent that they did not take into account that the political gridlock caused by strict division of powers and checks and balance of power allowed for the rise of the Caesars and the imperial state out of frustration at not being able to get things done. Poltical gridlock does sound familair doesn't it?
Oh a correction Afro-Americans were counted only as three-fifths of a human.
It's sad but we (The Good Ole US of A) will blow ourselves up sometime.. Just like Heston said "YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! OH, DAMN YOU! GODDAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!.
I don't think Zakaria is calling for a few minor revisions or updates, he is calling for an overhaul. He fails to recognize that the reason that we have two chambers in the Congress, the House and the Senate, is precisely to address both the need for larger states to have proportional representation while not allowing smaller states to be eclipsed by larger ones. It is a way to limit both the tyranny of a majority and the tyranny of a small elite. Why revise what works? So what is really being suggested here?
He cites the technological backwardness of the era of the founding fathers as reason for revision. But has he read their own writings? Has he read the Federalist Papers? Their grasp of political history far exceeds the typical politician, conservative or progressive, today. That is why the Constitution has endured. A populist document constructed on the web is not going have the same success, but more importantly- it is not going to protect our freedoms!
1. Term Limits (standard term lengths) (max of 32 yrs of federal elected service)
President – 2 terms (8 yrs)
Senate – 2 terms (12 yrs)
Congress – 6 terms (12 yrs)
2. Campaign finance reform
Limits on personal AND organizational donations. All donations to any candidates or organization commenting on election must be disclosed. NO anonymous donations. Money is NOT free speech. Saying it is, is like saying Bill Gates has more of a right to free speech than I do.
3. Congressional rules
no anonymous holds on bills. You have the right and duty to vote your mind in congress but not to remain silent about it, and if your gonna filibuster, your gonna filibuster! Mister smith goes to Washington style!
I'd request a right for everyone to bear arms. Wait. You say it's already IN the Constitution? Then why is it illegal in some states for honest, loyal Americans to carry a firearms? Are we really defending ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic? Maybe 4 people in Long Island, NY would still be alive if they were allowed to defend themselves against armed junkies.
The states have the right to decide who has guns. Don't like NY laws? Don't go to NY. Where did the "armed junkie" get the gun in the first place? Either stolen from someone who didn't secure it properly or bought in a state with weak gun laws and transported to NY. I don't wanna take your gun away but I don't think we should hand them out like Halloween candy either.
The right to bear arms is another one of the stupid distractions of US politics. It's an issue that really affects almost no-one, but people base their vote on it. How many incompetent politicians have been voted into place because they filled checkbox requirements like "believing" in the right to bear arms, or the opposite?
I try to choose who to vote for based on who I think will do the best job at the government's main role – taxing and spending responsibly. The right to bear arms is a marginal issue that has been blown up to try and attract people to one party or the other without having to demonstrate that those parties are actually good at running things.
It is (supposed to be) the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, and should be followed unequivocally. There should be no restrictions whatsoever! Not even for convicted felons, for they need to protect themselves too (usually from each other).
Likewise, there should be no preferential treatment, or protected status, of any other citizen, PARTICULARLY POLICE, over another citizen. If you're going to carry a gun and shoot at someone, be prepared for them to shoot back (and allow them to do so), and possibly die, without reprisal for either party.
How many people, armed or unarmed, have died from cop bullets because the police are "protected" from doing so? It is major felonies to shoot back at a cop. I don't care what the person has done, or is doing, they still have an inalienable basic human right to protect their life, and are barred from doing so by law.
Even the playing field and ABOLISH ALL LAWS RELATED TO GUN CONTROL, in compliance with the mandates of the US Constitution!
For those wondering, I don't personally like guns, don't own one, never have, and probably never will. But, I am sworn to uphold, defend, and protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Gun control laws fly in the face of the US Constitution, and therefore makes them, by their existence, an enemy thereof.
The logic of the Electoral College is the same as for having the Senate. If people want rule of popular vote then they should get rid of the Senate also. However, as the Great Compromise illustrates, we are a nation of separate states with separate interests. Oh wait, lets just have Texas, California, and New York decides what's best for all of us...Not to seem disrespectful, but how "American" is Fareed. I don't know much about him, but he seems more globally oriented than American.–
3 amendments I'd like to see are: 1) a strict environmental policy (energy & food production) which protects Earth's resources & humans. 2) all corporations limited in campaign financing. 3)health care by public option, no restrictions on American purchase of pharmaceuticals from other countries. + if I could have a 4th, it'd be--any lifestyle that doesn't physically harm another should be tolerated (gay, cigaret & pot smokers, trans-gendered people, obese, etc).
What? change the Constitution? Mr. Zakaria that is why we can "AMEND". You know change it? It is a perfect system as it is. Iceland may have centuries of history in the area self government, but they can't get it right...after centuries. Mr. Zakaria, why did you choose the US? Why didn't you choose Iceland? Also, this may sound bad – but why would you as an immigrant (unless that's a really bad Brooklyn accent) want to change the freedoms you now enjoy? Isn't that why you came here in the first place? Or maybe why your parents did? Folks in Arizona are seeing something similar to this now – people are leaving CA and moving to AZ. They move away from CA because of how screwed up it is but want to change AZ to be like CA...strange. Anyway, to answer your question – what would I add – 1. Conscription. Everyone at the age of 18 be required to serve 2 years in the military (regardless of sex, race, religion). If you live here, you do your part to protect/serve here. Exceptions based on physical/mental abilities/defects. 2. Term Limits of ALL elected officials, like the Presidency. Limit elected officials to 2 terms.
My $.02.
An education in history and politics would greatly benefit the author of this little opinion piece. First, suggesting that representative government had its advent in Iceland on some rocky ledge in the tenth century is laughable. What about Rome? Perhaps the fact that our own Founding Fathers looked to Rome and not Iceland would have clued us in to this.
Secondly, whenever I hear that the electoral college is essentially undemocratic, I hear the echo of incensed liberals who are still steaming over the loss of Gore to Bush. If you read up on the founding of our country, you would realize that we were not founded as a strict democracy, which is impossible in a country this size. You would also realize that the whole point of the electoral college was to protect the smaller states by giving them a voice that would otherwise be overwhelmed by a few key large states.
And trashing the Senate shows a lack of even remedial American politics. Go read the Federalist Papers.
Wow.
What about a total change in the Executive Branch. I have often thought that in today's world, the problems that relate to domestic issues coupled with the international issues is too much for one individual and one platform. Wouldn't be easier for there to be one executive responsible for international policy and a different execuitve for domestic policy?
We formally broke away from the Monarchy/Parliamentary system circa 1776. I'm not willing to go back. Are you suggesting a possible combination of say Donald Trump or , Obama, or John Kerry as head of the executive function, and perhaps Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan as head of state? What a combination that would be! You do the mixing and matching and speculate the results.
Lohan would be throwing a massive party using booze and Afghan drugs in Afghanistan, while Trump would be trying to sell it (Afghanistan) out from under them, as an example.
I would amend the constitution to make it clear that only people (living, breathing people) are legal persons and that corporations (who may never die and can't spend one day in prison [looking at you Goldman Sachs]) are not persons under the law.
What about a total change in the Executive Branch. I have often thought that in today's world, the problems that relate to domestic issues coupled with the international issues is too much for one individual and one platform. Wouldn't be easier for there to be one executive responsible for international policy and a different executive for domestic policy?
why in the world would you do that? So people can be even MORE PC than they already are? Just leave it alone....its worked fine since its inception and it'll work fine in decades to come
Small, but definite steps should be taken. Looking at one aspect of a possible New Constitution, I see the electoral process being improved. With the advent of many new methods of information delivery, their should be little need for financing any campaign. In addition, use of assets that are owned by the citizens of our country should also be used to their full advantage. These assets being the radio and television frequencies that are used by private enterprise, but not owned by private enterprise. A broadcast station license is supposed to be awarded with "The Public Good" in mind. Getting back to the electoral process; a one month campaign should be all that is required for the public to be made fully aware of a candidate's positions, philosophy, or what ever else they wish to know about them. This would eliminate millions of dollars of needless expense, and also open up the process of serving in office to the general public, rather than simply to the candidate who generates the most money. One last note would beg that a new constitution be written in plain english, rather that the legalese that permeates every document in Washington.
I am in full support of the drafting of a new Constitution through a constitutional convention. As you stated, the Constitution was drafted for circumstances and issues of the distant past and now has no relevance in the 21st century.
My three amendments would be:
1: Congressmen should be selected randomly from a list of qualified University professors, Senators should be elected.
2: Universal Health Care
3: Bullet Control. Possession and or purchase of more than 1 bullet should illegal.
Wow. Apparently Fareed has not done his homework. And no one bothered to check his facts either before he posted. Great for Iceland. We are not Iceland. We are the United States of America, a Republic. Not a pure democratic society. What a dork.
The major reform I would take to the Constitution is in relation to term limits. As it stands currently (representatives elected every two years, presidents four, senators six), there is no incentive and it seems many disincentives to making decisions that actually work, and thinking out the logical repercussions of those decisions that are made.
Every elected official is in constant election mode until (as with presidents) they hit a lame-duck period, when no one listens to them anyway. Something must done to force these electees to raise their visions to the an appropriate time frame – the higher the office, the longer the timeframe they should be making decisions on. Our local city council can effect change tomorrow, or in the next week or month – the representatives, senators, and presidents should be looking and work 10-15 years out or further.
As a modest start, I would increase all term limits by four years – elect representatives for six years, presidents for eight, and senators for 10. That would hopefully break the electoral stranglehold on the politicians mindset, and allow these officials to actually work. In order to help ensure that they do, I would also implement a defined recall mechanism for all. If a set percentage of the voters who elected them (for instance, an arbitrary level of 70%) decide that they are doing a terrible job, or have done something so improper as to warrant their removal from office, then that would happen. The official would be removed from office, and the seat reopened to a shortened campaign. Or the incumbent could survive the recall vote, and be on notice to change their ways.
With regards to the existence of the senate, and the electoral college, I would say that both of those issues speak to a more central concept that perhaps DOES need to be changed. When the Constitution was written, its purpose was to establish a government that served both the people, as citizens of the United States, and the states themselves. Do we still need to recognize the states as principal actors, or not? I don't have any well articulated thoughts on the subject, but here are the questions I would begin asking if there was a movement to remove that recognition. First, if the state (as defined by the constitution currently) ceases to be a principal actor, then what purpose does the senate serve? Do we even need to elect senators? Secondly, and following from the first – if we have no more senate, do we still desire a bicameral legislature? If we do, what replaces the senate? Also, how would this effect a whole array of services and current separation between what is properly "state" and what is "federal?" Would it be more beneficial in terms of streamlining services and departments, but at what point do we need and want friction built in to ensure that everyone is getting their needs properly serviced?
If CNN had it their way, Obama would just rule forever and he would rain down judgement as he sees fit. Kill democracy now! Socialism is the only ism.
Thanks for proving you know nothing about socialism whatsoever. Here's an idea, how about you get educated instead of believing everything the rethugs tell you.
Totally off base about the Presidential election of 2000. There was, and still is, a way to have resolved that situation within the law. The Lawsuits were a total distortion of an existing process, and the Supreme Court's big mistake was sticking their nose into the business at all. In Florida, the count would have continued until the Sec of State could determine "a winner". NOT the exact total of votes cast, but determine who won the election, whether by 1 or 1Million vote margin. Then the legislature ratifies or overturns the result and transmits the result to Congress. If the result was late (there was a deadline) Congress decides if they want to count the votes anyway. That whole process is coded into law, and we've been through it a few times in the past (Hawaii in the 60s most recently). The court lawsuit process was a shameful distraction, and made a political process out of the judicial process too. Stupid and Wrong
uh, fareed, dumbazz....we are a representative republic not a democracy....a pure democracy is mob rule....and the electoral college prevents urban areas from dominating smaller populations.....
Instead of trying to adapt the Constitution to our way of life, perhaps it is time that we restored our way of life to the Constitution. The Constitution is a brilliant document and any attempt by someone who clearly does not understand it to change it should merely be ignored.
Yes – undo Roe v. Wade by rewriting the 14th Amendment...
I am just glad it doesn't seem here that anyone wants to redo the Bill of Rights portion. It's pretty clear the Left already wants to curb free speech, get rid of the right to bear arms, and it's pretty clear both parties would love to do away with the Fourth Amendment (right to freedom from unreasonable/warrantless search and seizure)
I agree that the Constitution needs to be revised. Its ludicrous to be operating our government on a document that is over 200 years old when the world has changed so much during that time.
Mr Zakari fails in his understanding of the compromises that were made to get the constitution. Many of the issues that resulted in those compromises as still valid today. Political power by sheer force of population numbers will oppress some other members of the population who deserve to be heard. Keep the Senate just the way it is.
1) Term limits for congress
2) Cap campaign contributions for all entities at a very low amount.
3) Flat tax rates
The above would do wonders for the country In my opinion.
"Iceland is home to the world's oldest parliament still in existence, the Althing, set up in 930 A.D. The rocky ledge on which they gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world." Has Mr. Zakaria never heard of Athens?
I find Mr. Zakaria's description of the conditions under which the Constitution was framed, to be both unpleasantly condescending and suggestive of a global political agenda. I think he needs not only to read the Constitution again, but also to read much more about why it was written the way it was. For Americans, this is not just *a* constitution; it is *The* Constitution. Growing up abroad can create a very different mindset from that which is the result of growing up here. It was essential to produce a document to which all the states would agree at the time, so the slavery problem was not addressed, but the amendment procedure was included, for the sake of the future. As Mr. Franklin observed, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.".
It is the Constitution that made this country the refuge where people such as the Roma and the Jews could find safety, when all of continental Europe was unsafe for them. IIt is also the Constitution that has made our worst social habits, such as the enslavement of Africans, able to be reformed in the long run. As long as we have the Constitution, and respect it, we remain a free people, and we shall never surrender The Bill of Rights, no matter what deceptive arguments are put forth in favor of our doing so.
Read federalist 10... enough said.
Zakaria is a man with no particular affinity for the U.S., who poses as an American as he speaks consistently of the U.S. in ways that diminish it. His overall view is clear when his writing is followed over time. This is not a Great Nation that can be improved, it is an average nation that needs to be remade in a socialist model.
As if a 'cramped room' is relevant to the quality of the constitution? As if the gee-whiz setting for Iceland's exercise will make for a better outcome? Interestingly, he declares that their experiment has worked, though their still in the drafting phase. Such a premature declaration clearly reveals a bias toward it.
(p.s. - the Althing may have originated in 930, but as he stated, the current constitution is younger than my father)
Zakaria mentions items that could use changing - something that can be managed via amendments, as has been done many times - and uses them as the basis for his notion of scratching the entire document. He belittles American regard for the document by saying that any talk of amending it is considered "heresy", though it's been amended many times.
When Zakaria talks of "revisiting" the constitution, what he's really talking about is flushing it, and replacing it with something more socialist-friendly. The constitution and the freedoms, rights and guarantees it provides are major sticking points for the agenda that much of the left has for America. The intentions of people like him are exactly what it is meant to protect against.
What a clueless pile of crap.
It seems like a lot of people are missing the point here. Or perhaps not, as the idea of the article was to spark debate as to whether the Constitution should be revisited rather than say: let's rewrite it with Iceland's method of social media. There seems to be debate but too much of it is centered on bashing what was said and why it's wrong and evil and un-American, rather than discussing new ideas. Which would seem to imply that the social media approach would get absolutely nowhere over here even if anyone did want to try it. And for those saying Mr. Zakaria needs to educate himself better on the system, I'm willing to be he has a much firmer grasp of our government than most people criticizing him. Again, it was an article to start debate. The point was to pick out a few areas to get people talking. For my two cents, all of existence is constantly moving forward. It's not possible to stay static forever.
The electoral college is really not a problem, nor is the fact htat each state has 2 senators, as those senators are counterbalanced by the house of representatives. The biggest problem that we ought to be trying to tackle is just why policy is predominantly written by Lobbyists and not the elected officials, why those same lobbyists don't care what party a representative or senator belongs to, as long as their laws get passed.
You see, because of the unfortunate inherent greed that we all have, the government has in effect become, ineffective, laws don't get passed, progress is not made, and the benefit to constituents and people is minimal at best. Why lobby, lobby lobby.
We need to amend the Constitution in order to remove the cancer which is the lobbyist from DC.
And making the presidential term like 6 years would prob also help, not much you can do in 4, just too much policy flip flopping if you ask me. But that's another story.
DOWN WITH THE LOBBYISTS!!!!!
leave it alone. There are methods to ammend it. it was a simpler time and that helps the constituition cut to the chase, involve the lawyers and modern politicians and we will have the most complicated meaningless document immaginable. Also, be glad Wisconsin is equal to California in Senate votes, California's electorate has proven time and again it's inability to deal with reality and problem solving.
Re-writing your Constitution based on what's sent to you via twitter, facebook and youtube seems like a very, very poor way of reorganizing your country.
Let's look at the numbers: 7 million people (approximately) use Facebook. Even balanced against just one country, that's 7 million out of how many billions of individuals? Do the ones not on Facebook (or Twitter or Youtube) have no say in their government? People who either dislike the technology or simply choose not to use it don't have a voice in their laws?
Thank god I don't live in Iceland. And I hope to never see something this ill-conceived take place in the United States.
I agree that the electoral collage should not be used. Look what happened when Bush ‘won’ in his second election. That was a fiasco. There should be other provisions to help the smaller states but it has to be changed.
What about free speech? Something needs to be added to that so freaks aren’t running around bombing places (abortion clinics) or protesting fallen solders funerals and be protected because of free speech. Free speech my arse.
My favorite: Right to bear arms. Come on, that was written when they never would have imagined the kind of fire power people have today. That needs total revision.
Why would it be so bad to update our Constitution? We need it to be something to follow that is up to date. Companies have to update policies all the time.
I find the idea of investigating the possibility of offering one or two amendments to the constitution interesting, but I do not agree with your implication that it is hopelessly out-of-date and requires wholesale changes.
For example, you state that: "The United States constitution was, as you know, drafted in a cramped room in Philadelphia in 1787 with shades drawn over the windows. It was signed by 39 people." This is correct, but these were not just any 39 people. They were intellectual and/or political giants (Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, etc.), who in some cases had spent their whole adult lives studying and participating in representative government. In my opinion, their work has withstood the test of time extremely well.
In addition, you state that: “The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.” The United States of America is not an unfettered democracy of 300 million people governed strictly by the federal government; it is a republic of fifty separate states. The issue that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 struggled with the most was the method of representation to be used for the Senate. They came up with the compromise that the House of Representatives would be based on “one man, one vote,” and that the Senate would be based on, essentially, one state, one vote.
Finally, you state that “And we are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system.” I agree with this, and support a constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote as the means for deciding presidential elections.
Keep social anything away from our sacred document – typical this guy works foir cnn... typical
Here is my proposal for Amendment 28. The Congress shall have the power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the involvement of any corporation, business, or non-citizen, in the election of political candidates. Additionally, national political candidates may only accept monetary or in-kind contributions from individuals who reside in the district or state which that candidate may represent, and are eligible to vote for that candidate. - Basically the purpose of this is to limit political contributions to people you can vote for. If you are running for the House, you may raise money from any eligible voter in your district. If you are running for the Senate, you may raise money only from any eligible voter in your state. President? You can raise money from any registered voter. This would eliminate a great deal of money from the election cycle.
What a simpleton's pile of crap.
It really bothers me that cnn allowed this to be published. It's not that the author didn't raise some decent questions about the constitution as a whole, it's that he did it in a very uneducated way. RickHouse had it right, the author needs to retract his statements, especially since he is affiliated with the obama administration, it is just kind of sad that this was a real article and embarassing to the presidents administration that someone with such a lack of understanding has a platform to spout this kind of stuff.
The Constitution is not broken – the "interpretation" of the constitution is what has buried us ... all we need to do is knock down this ridiculous house of cards built by self-serving politicians and activist judges so that we can go back to the original intent of The Document. State's rights and limits on Congress should be priority number one. If I could make only one change to the way we "do business", it would be shorter terms and very strict term limits – like 3 year terms (House, Senate, and President) and 2 terms maximum (6 years total) – lifetime. Some argue that this does not give politicians enough time to build relationships and "coalitions". My answer: EXACTLY!
The House of Representatives was established to represent the people. The Senate was established to represent the states. Before the passage of the amendment (16th, I think) that allowed senators to be elected, senators were appointed by the states' legislatures. Electoral College voters were elected to vote for president. It had nothing to do with plurality of the votes in each state. Also, the person coming in second place was to be Vice President, not elected as a "ticket" to serve with the elected president. Many times there were idealistic differences. At the time of the establishment of the Constitution, our founding fathers were learned and enlightened men who were fully aware of the crumbling and failing of democracies; hence, we became a republic. Since the passage of the amendment allowing senators to be elected by popular vote, we have lost our republic. You can thank Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, and all the liberals/progressives for this. Zakaria, you are an ignorant dunce.
well you can thank the Republicans for pushing for for corporations to have the same righs as human beings......wouldnt the corporations today just love to re-write the US constition???......as for Fareed his books on a post American world stinks!!!! America is the world!!!!
You're all nuts to think that sitting here talking about it is going to change anything. The US of A may be a republic now, but we're on a meteoric rise to socialism. We are climbing past 35% taxation and rising, and we have become a nation this far too dependent upon the government for everything. Once taxes have reached around 65% to 70%, the transformation to Socialism will be complete. The farce that is the two-party system has us so busy screaming and blaming each other, we're too busy to see the real larceny going on under our noses. Our government doesn't give a rat's behind about us, and the sooner everyone realizes it, the better off they'll be.
If a war (or any military conflict) lasts longer than 12 months, then a military draft comes into effect. People are chosen at random from the electoral register to serve for 3 years.
Once the sons and daughters of those wealthy families who profit from wars start dying, we will see conflicts will get resolved much more quickly – if they ever start at all.
If were gonna do a draft then make it so that the children/grandchildren of ALL federally elected officials must serve. No desk jockey position on some base in the Midwest either. Front line with everybody elses kids.
One thing the founding fathers were willing to do when they created the constitution. They were willing to die for what it stood for. Do any of you have any ideas you would be willing to put forth that you would die for? If not then it is the height of hubris to assume you know better than someone that staked their fortunes, families and lives to create this founding document. Above all people, the politicians would LOVE to see the constitution changed because it limits their power. And once they start changing it, then it is only a matter of time before the constitution becomes a document of the politicians, by the politicians for the politicians instead of a document of, by and for the people.
the only thing that really needs to be changed is our election system. With the two party system we have now it's just voting for the lesser of two evils. If a third party candidate shows up people won't vote for them because what we're doing most the time is vote against who we don't want. It is time to switch to an IRV system (instant runoff voting).
Fareed, typically I appreciate your content and it is well researched, but this article seems to be taken from a perspective of someone who has never attended a basic poli-sci class to understand the why of constitutional design. The more I read CNN's articles of late the more I wonder if anyone is part of the screening at all in the editorial and opinion columns other than the authors.
If you want to re-write the constitution and re-write the balance of the powers between the states.. then I wish you luck with getting any hope for re-ratification of the document. It simply won't happen. The United States is not a PURE democracy. We are a Republic which stands for its people and member states. Pure democracy will not work here and would result in a dissolution of the Union. Perhaps if you had studied any part of constitutional history before you made this article, you would understand that.
we only needed 27 changes because all other issues are to be dealt with by States themselves. Iceland is a little different, son.
Is should not be 'easy' to change the constitution. Look an the lame brains in Washington. You want to make it easier for people like this to change our most basic document? Not on your life. WE THE PEOPLE in the form of 2/3rds of the States have to apporove those changes. Keep it that way!
Too many of you people simply don't understand voting theory (make that all of you). Ken Arrow proved a nasty little theorem that basically says: give me 3 options and there is no way to rank them consistently so that they respect a few natural properties. These properties are (i) if everyone prefers option Y then so does society; (ii) the presence of option Z, if not preferred by anyone to either X or Y, should not matter; (iii) no single voter determines the outcome. This little theorem says basically that a majority vote system does not guarantee a good outcome.
It is time you people got up to speed.
“Democracy without education is hypocrisy without limitation.” —Iskander Mirza
Updated? NO. The rights discussed are fundamental in nature, that are just as valid today as they were centuries ago.
If there is any doubt in this truth, ask yourself this – Who would be doing the revisions?
Who do you trust more? Today's politicians or the enduring wisdom of the Founding Fathers?
Do questions like these even need to be seriously asked?
The founding fathers were just yesterday's politicians. Of course we need to update the Constitution. Women still do not have equal rights in this country since the ERA was never ratified. Money is poisoning our democracy. Should tobacco companies be able to make a profit from causing more than 400,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year? There is work to do and changes that should be made. Those who are smug in the belief that we don't need to change – whether that applies to the individual or our country – will never realize their full potential.
Spoken like a true follower of Chairman Mao just prior to the great leap forward. Instead of corporations they were capitalists, instead of ERA it was economic equality and gold as the root of all evil. The battle cry for change is truly rousing but Beware of anyone in a FREE country that runs or professes on a platform of CHANGE–politically speaking it is never for the better. I'll give you 4 examples: Jimmy Carter, Pol Pot, Mao Tze Dong, Barak Obama. A platform of "CHANGE" means "I've got no real ideas but I'm hoping a bunch of you are dissatisfied, self-loathing, ignorant or feeling guilty enough to vote for me."
Thinker67: "Spoken like a true follower of Chairman Mao just prior to the great leap forward." So I bring up the fact that women don't have equal rights under the Constitution and I lament the deaths from cigarettes, and you equate me to a follower of Chairman Mao? Wow. No hyperbole there. I notice you also lumped Carter and Obama in with Pol Pot. Pathetic.
according to Fareed america has to innovate....if we are so lacking in innovation....why is the American Army the most powerful the world has ever known???? Fareed can take his anti American ideas and shove em'..
I fail to see how a = 39 there, David...
I have never seen such a gross display of nationalism in my life. This article was posted to prompt an educated debate and has turned to a low brow, name calling message thread. America is a great country but any reasonable person can identify areas in which it is not the greatest. It digusts me to see such closed mindedness at the mere suggestion of changing an antiquated and often inefficient system. So much could be done in this country if people were not so exceptionally proud af the title of being American and the freedoms that go with living here without educating themselves on the issues we are facing. I belive many of these comments prove that "America is the greatest no matter what" sentiment.
there should be a like and dislike button for these posts. But I agree with you, Middle America is completely antiquated voting solely on the words of 2000 year old book, which they have most likely never read...only heard interpreted by homosexual clergy who was too busy molesting some poor alter boy, so by contrast a 200 year old document interpreted by faithless uneducated career politicians seems pretty relevant and spot on to them. And Fareed is possibly one of the smartest persons to grace your television screen, that is why he knows Obama and Bush on a first name basis and you(middle America) do not.
It's not antiquated. Where it falls down is usually where it has been bastardized. It is purposely inefficient in that it was designed to keep the fefderal government weak.
The electoral system and the 2 senators for each state rule prevents states with large populations from usurping all the power.
David. Go back to sleep. Obama has been a bigger friend to corporate America than any Republican president has been. Besides, the Office of the President, and I don't mean the man, is just driving the machine towards the one-world government goal of the Goldman-sachs of the world.
The President, Senators and Representatives should all be elected by poplar vote doing away with the electoral college. The President, Senators and Representatives should all be elected in the same election year for one 6 year term. They should receive an hourly rate for the hours spent in Washington conducting government business.
Congress is not elected by the electoral college...but by popular vote from thier states or districts...
If we didn't have the electoral college then Gore would have been President instead of W and we wouldn't have been in the mess that we are in right now. Sounds pretty good to me!
America could learn something...
This is actually for the people, by the people.
Its ridiculous for someone who obtained his american citizenship by amendements made to the consitution to argue that the document is outdated...What a complete crock...He hasn't said anything intellectually stimulating to me, but he went to harvard and therefore he is in. its that simple. What a sham..
If there were a need to revise the Constitution, we already have the mechanism to do so. It is called an amendment.
The fact that amendments for certain items that would further dissolve the foundation of our nation and the liberties afforded its citizens by limiting government's powers and reserving powers to the People.
The only reason to venture down the path described in this article would be to redistribute power from the People and States to the federal government. This action would bring to an end the unique liberties our forefathers fought to gain and preserve for their posterity.
Just what we need...The United States Corporate Constitution.
Face facts, if we let these corrupt politicians get there hands on that document it will be high bidder wins on every issue down the line.
1st: The United Staes is NOT a democratic system. It is a republic system. There is a difference. The founding fathers set it up this way so that there are checks and balances.
2nd: As someone pointed out in their post, each state can decide how they want their delegates to the Electoral College distributed. So, for a state, their delegates may be decided on popular vote. Remember, each state is sovereign on many issues: taxes, alcohol, gambling, etc.
3rd: In another post, someone stated that the election of all other elected officials is based on popular vote. Not true. Govenors in many states are based on an electoral college type system similar to the president.
4th: A possible scenario: If a president is elected based on strictly a national popular vote, a candidate could promise the 15 most populist states that their taxes would be zero and the other 35 states would support them. If 80% of people in those states voted for the candidate, they would win the popular vote.
I am sure other more drastic scenarios could be thought up.
My opinion: The current system works.
The first amendment needs to be to limit the authority and spending ability of Congress by eliminating all discretionary spending and making hard lines on deficeit spending
which are subject to automatic cuts when certain triggers are reached. If you take the money out of congresses hands you make congress behave. This act would also put all members of congress on a pay for performance scale that ties their compensation to their ability to legislate and keep costs down. Also what is covered in the federal budget should be consolidated.
The second amendment would be the national policing act which would consolidate the Federal agencies currently doing a broad range of activites to one. This way every officer would be aware of counter terroism, immigration, drug enforcement, white collar crime,alcohol tobacco and firearms and others.This
way should the need arise for more agents in one area or another it becomes a deployment issue not a hiring issue. We cost account
our problems with each problem being a cost center instead of seeing its all crime that needs to be fought.Also federally fund community policing nationwide to help to implement cops walking the neighborhoods again in an effort
to starve off problems instead of reacting to them. Also a series of regional data centers to perform CSI work for state and local police to lower the costs of fighting crime.
Third amendment infrastructure reform which would essentially cover all 13kv and higher power distribution networks,road,rail,air,school costs.This would be funded annually automatically with preference going to maintenance of existing infrastructure
over building new infrastructure. This way the national power grid would be upgraded to a state that wouldn't allow a single utility company to black out a large area. This also is important in case of a terrorism attack to try to mitigate damage to larger areas. This act would nationalize the current interstate system
but instead provide a rational national infrastructure maintenance instead of waiting 20 years and rebuilding roads. Rail would be a little different as all of the rail lines would be nationalized for to effectively move freight and passengers at the lowest costs. The existing owners of the lines would still operate the trains and freight business
but would pay a trackage fee which would pay for passenger rail. The current owners of the tracks would not have to pay maintenance fees for the tracks and should be able to make more money just operating the trains. This way freight lines could be moved to prevent hazardous materials from transiting populated areas and to pave the way for high speed
passanger and freight rail. High speed freight being defined as any non hazardous or bulk material would be shipped at speeds over 100 mph. Currently trucks are transiting the chunnel at higher speeds than this so it is possible. Also more freight by rail lowers roadway rebuilding costs. Finally schools should be included in this to provide computers,security equipmentand buildings.the states will not have the money and this simply spreads the investment
on our children nationally so it is less per person.
There's not one commentator here who possesses 1/10 the intellect that Fareed Zakaria possesses, and I find it at once sad and comical that so many here think that they do.
Then he needs to demonstrated it by showing in his article that he realizes that the House of Representatives was in fact made for the very purpose he intends the senate to operate. If we did things in the manner he proposed, congress would immediately become redundant and half the lessor represented states would probable cede from the Union.
Perhaps you should research where the idea of a bicameral congress came from. (You can start with The Iroquois.)
The current structure of the Senate was a compromise to satisfy smaller states that feared lack of representation, but, as the author points out, there were only 13 states at the time. If you really believe that any of you are telling him anything he didn't already know, you're delusional.
It is not that people here think that they have more intellect than the author, and it really doesn't seem as though anybody has attacked his overall intellect. The criticism that he is receiving is for the statements that he made in THIS article. Don't make blanket statements about people you don't know and the intellect that they possess. Anybody with computer access can reach cnn.com meaning that there is a good chance that there are intellectual people displaying their thoughts. Just because he has impressive credentials does not mean that we have to agree with what he writes, he displayed an overall lack of understanding about what he was talking about in this article.
Well no one has displayed any great intellect in this thread, and that's what my statement was based upon. Again, If you really believe that any of you are telling him anything he didn't already know, you're delusional.
You do not even know me yet you judge me. That makes you a bigot. I am only commenting on the content expressed by Fareed. It is up to him to accurately convey his intent and if he fails to do that through poor explanation then the fault is not that of the one reading the article. He clearly states and I quote, "The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote." And yet if anyone has taken a basic U.S. Poli-sci course at a university they would understand that is not the purpose of the Senate, but it IS the purpose of the House of Representatives, which is why the house even bears that name. I cannot read into Fareed the intelligence that he is said to possess, he must express it for my understanding and measure.
I'm judging the comments I've read here not unknown quantities. Perhaps Mr, Zarkaria is guilty of assuming too much intellect on the part of the reader and could have explained it to you better, but I didn't read it as him not understanding the structure of congress but simply as suggesting that the structure of the Senate is outdated considering the dramatic changes in population over the last 222 years. I'm pretty sure he knows why it was structured that way in the first place. For more read my above responses. I'm tired of repeating myself like a broken record or like all the comments here.
The simple statement of his words, without any clarification on his part, would indicate he does not know how the U.S. Congress works. You may have the pleasure to assume that, but I assume the intellect of no person, especially one I do not know on a personal basis. It is not the shortfall of the intelligence of the reader to take the publisher of the article at his word. Why should we give him the benefit of the doubt that he understands how our government works when his expressions seem directly to the contrary?
Makes the incorrect assertation that this is most undemocratic... I challenge you to find the word democracy in our Constitution. Further, we were better off when people actually thought of our form of government as a Representative Republic. No, our Constitution needs to be left alone, and defended. Change for the sake of change is what gets us where we are...
Americans will cry and complain if anything in the world changes. Look at the reaction whenever Facebook announces they're doing something different.
in the tank for Obama, social reform, and redistribution. wants to change all core values, not under our watch.
In your book, "The Future of Freedom," you write, "America is increasingly embracing a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness as the key measures of legitimacy. This ideology has necessitated the destruction of old institutions, the undermining of traditional authority, and the triumph of organized interest groups, all in the name of 'the people.' The result is a deep imbalance in the American system, more democracy but less liberty" (p. 162). So why are you suddenly concerned that the Senate is undemocratic?
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote."
I'm struggling with where to start with this statement. The HOUSE is designed to represent population shifts while the SENATE is.designed.to.give.small STATES like Rhode Island an equal voice. Have you ever studied how and why the Congress was organized as it was? A bicameral Congress balances BOTH needs but you only focus on one side of the issue. The "one man, one vote" concept has nothing to do with the states; it has to do with individual citizens.
The current technology of travel – horses or cars – or rural or urban has no bearing on this discussion.
It was a topic to encourage discussion on the off chance the nation that prides itself on "democracy" wants to be an actual democracy. He's aware the Senate is not set up to be democratic. Pretty sure he understands how the government works better than you. Move on.
John
David. Go back to sleep. Obama has been a bigger friend to corporate America than any Republican president has been. Besides, the Office of the President, and I don't mean the man, is just driving the machine towards the one-world government goal of the Goldman-sachs of the world.
June 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm>>>>>>>>>>>yeah sure go back to sleep, like george bush did when for 8 years when terrorist brought down building and our economic laws were written by wall street...sorry pal george bush slept for 8 years and Americans need to wake up! what a lost decade!!! in blood and treasure...
Here are the 3 changes I would make:
1. Abolish the electoral college, making all presidential elections nationwide, with every vote counting equally.
2. Abolish the senate, giving all of its powers to the House of Representatives.
3. Change congressional elections for the remaining House to occur every 4 years, 2 years after the presidential election.
Making the first two changes would eliminate the disproportionate, undemocratic influence that some states (i.e. small ones) have on the electoral and legislative processes. Making the third will free representatives from the non-stop campaign cycle they now inhabit, giving them the leeway to occasionally vote based on what's best for the nation, instead of what is most likely to get them re-elected.
If you don't agree or like the United States Constitution then you should move to Iceland!!!!
1. Nobody may donate to a political candidate unless they are eligible to vote in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is seeking office.
2. Nobody may donate to an organization that lobbies or donates to political campaigns unless that organization has a physical office in the Congressional district the individual is eligible to vote in. That office must employ one full time individual at a salary that is sufficient to cover their cost of living.
3. No organization shall lobby on an issue unless it can demonstrate that 75% or more of its funding is provided by 50% or more of its members and that no single member withing that portion of its membership donates more than twice the mean donation the organization receives.
4. All organizations that lobby shall keep a list of their members including the donations these members make to the organization. This list shall be public and available at least one physical location in each congressional district the organization operates in. It shall list all members activities within the last five years or longer. Only members can donate to an organization.
Basically this would get rid of any organizations donating to political campaigns as long as we prevent organizations from voting. While it would not get rid of lobbying it does make it so that organizations seeking to influence policy have a broader level of support, essentially it would limit organizations with names like 'People for Issue X' that are often backed entirely by the money of one or a few people. These organizations could still exist but they couldn't lobby. If they were able to lobby it would be rather obvious they were phony.
I thought Al Gore invented the constitution?
Regarding the electoral college, one-man-one-vote would work and would be representative of the entire country if every citizen were required by law to vote and we ensured that every citizen's vote was collected and included. However, in America freedom is cherishsed and defended, and the right of a person to not vote is supported as well. Since we cannot guarantee that every citizen will vote (nor should we) we need a representative form of voting to ensure that equal representation of states is upheld. After all we are a Union of States, not individuals. However, this doesn't mean an amendment can't be made to the constitution. As someone stated before, it is designed to be amended, but in a way that ensure passing whims and fancies are not put into it. Difficulty in amending it is of utmost importance. Another thing is that states have the flexibility to pass laws that govern how their electoral votes are derived. Get involved in local politics so you can ensure that your vote counts!
It should be revised to allow only a percentage of people from certain religions as we have an over representation of jews in too many previous administrations. Also the 14th amendment needs to be revised so these same jews in government don't try to ruin the heritage of America by flooding it with 3rd world people. It really should be illegal for a dual citizen (israeli) to serve in our government at all!!!!!
I love how many people claim to be 'original intent' followers. Our Founding Fathers were slave owners, and even the next century the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln said (yes, he actually said it, you can look it up) that while he wanted to free slaves, he never intended for them to be recognized as voting citizens with the same rights as whites. And forget about women's rights! Those didn't come about until 1920!
The original intent of our Founding Fathers stopped after the first ten Amendments! Demanding that the Constitution be interpreted with 'original intent' in mind is impossible and downright ridiculous!
Women don't have equal rights. The ERA has been shot down to this day. Women have the right to vote but otherwise nothing in the Constitution specifies that they must be treated equally.
good point.
As you have pointed out, the constitution has been amended. Maybe not how the founding fathers intended, but they did allow for it. Without it, would we still have slavery?
I love how many people claim to know what 'original intent' was or claim that it's not a living document. I bet they'd balk at the idea that the only arms they have a right to bear are muskets. These are the same people who think the 10th amendment grants autonomy to the States. @Kim: You might want to peruse the 14th amendment. I think it applies to women considering that women are both persons and citizens.
Federal government is only responsible for what is delineated in the document – no need to change , son.
Yes small revisions are needed. It should be revised to allow only a percentage of people from certain religions as we have an over representation of jews in too many previous administrations. Also the 14th amendment needs to be revised so these same jews in government don't try to ruin the heritage of America by flooding it with 3rd world people. It really should be illegal for a dual citizen (israeli) to serve in our government at all!!!!!
@valpokoz: 1st: The United States is NOT a democratic system. It is a republic system. There is a difference. The founding fathers set it up this way so that there are checks and balances.
Good point. People forget that. Something else people forget? The constitution before this one (yes, this is the second one) defined a confederation and was generally more of a democracy. A little too much. The courts and legislatures were pretty much useless.
David – If Bush slept for eight years, than why is Obama continuing many of his policies, including the War on Terror in Afganistan and the Bush tax credits? Because they were successful. By the way, why aren't you outraged that Obama went back on two campaign promises; war and taxes? He's also attacking countries without consulting or even telling congress. Yeah, you gotta hand it to those democratic presidents. You voted for him, I sure didn't. You wanted him, you got him!!!!
John – please. Obama has not continued these two wars because they are or ever were successful – he has systematically reduced the efforts for the purpose of withdrawal in the case of Iraq, and brought to war in Afghanistan to the point of mission completion the last administration was unable to achieve and is now making arrangements for that withdrawal as well. As far as the Bush tax benefits – this was a bargaining measure to appeal to the GOPs demands as a compromise, one he has pledged not to support again. And a quick review of the War Powers Act will show he did not act outside of his authority in the case of Libya. Read the stipulations of that treaty, not the misinterpretation as presented by the GOP and Fox News propaganda machine. Please get your facts right. Further, anyone who expected full recovery of the global economic crash created by the last administration to be corrected two years after it began considering it's full damage was still being tallied well into the Obama administration's tenure.is delusional.
John, Obama doesn't need to consult congress. Congress forfeit that requirement under the Patriot Act.
The constitution is just fine the way it is. Move to Iceland is you hate this country and take all of the complaining liberals with you.
Not everyone has access to the internet...
And anyway, imagine how horrible our constitution would be if it was written by the people who normally comment on online articles and youtube pages! We would definitely have a larger portion of the constitution written in all caps, haha
My thoughts on revisions of the Constitution. I think overall it has worked just fine for the past 222 years. but could go for some updating. One amendment that I would like to see is term limits for all public office just as the Presidents 2 terms then that’s it no holding an office for 30 or 40 years!!! Second amendment. No adding special interest legislation to a bigger piece of legislation so that some Senator or Representatives 3rd nephew gets his college tuition paid for. (That last portion was an example not taken from any fact at all) I was hoping the example would help explain my point.
Third amendment would be a 10% income (not sure what the percentage would be the 10% is also just and example) across the board for everyone business everything regardless no deductions you bring in $100 you pay $10.
and that is how I would make a start to a change in the Constitution not necessarily right or wrong just my opinion which the constitution gives me the right to.
Simple changes but effective. I like the way you think. If we could actually get people talking about it, term limits and flat tax rates with no loopholes would eliminate the majority of party politics. What legislation do you pass if you know that your term is up next year and you have no means to grease the pockets of your consituents? The simplest answer is usually the right one...now let's just get more people on board
One major change that would make a great difference:
Change the term of the presidency to 6 years, limited to one term. That would eliminate the need for the incumbent to raise money for reelection, and enable him/her proceed with an agenda without having to fear displeasing some group or other.
The only right we seem to agree on anymore is the right to disagree. And we disagree on EVERYTHING... with increasingly vicioius debate, nebulous misinformation and endless footdragging that mired down healthcare reform and will certainly kill any meaningless progress on the debt ceiling, Medicare and Social Security reform.
We have a broken system of two parties that won't do anything for fear of ruining everyone's chances of getting elected... except complain about each other. People are running for offices years ahead of elections, spending millions upon millions, fending off scandals like paparazzi... all to the point where no one actually level-headed and qualified enough to do the job will ever run for it.
How on Earth can we accomplish something as grand and historic as modernizing our Constitution?
I like the ideas that some of the Icelanders came up with, although I don't think shark-finning, as wrong as it may be, rises to the level of constitutional law. I also like the idea of abolishing the electoral college. It has out-lived its reason for being. That said, I do not like the idea of scrapping the constitution and starting over. It has served us well all these years. Besides, we could never agree. Look at the great disparity in political viewpoints in the country today.
In any case, I would not have a voice. I don't belong to Twitter or Facebook and rarely look at You Tube. I guess my vote would be disenfranchised – as would many others.
Exactly what pert of the Constitution needs to be changed or deleted so much that we have to start again? Huh?
part*
I'd prefer the wisdom of the founding fathers, without preference to environmentalism or industry, rich or poor, and so on, to the heavily left or right leaning politicians of today.
I am very unhappy with the misprint in the original 2nd Amendment, It is written
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." when it was obviously meant to read
"the right of the People to keep and ARM BEARS shall not be infringed."
We are a representative republic, not a straight democracy, so get rid of the idea of one man, one vote. Revisions are fine but they take a lot of support and are rarely done. The reason Iceland is re-doing there is because it sucks. The reason ours is so great is that it actually allows for change (Hence the amendments) and established checks and balances to keep any person or branch of government from becoming too poweful. If you want a "re-do" then move to iceland. I'll take our imperfections and focusing on keeping our core values alive.
I'd hate to see the common man be allowed to make suggestions on how to change the US Constitution. Look at what it's done to California...
LEAVE IT ALONE AND LEARN TO LIVE BY IT.
Three amendements I would offer:
1) ALL legislation must be passed by a recorded electronic or paper vote by roll call as a stand alone bill. (no more christmas tree loading any bills with junk unrelated to the bill....i.e...one topic, one bill and no more amendments and they must record each individual vote, no hiding any legislators vote)
2) Abolish the electoral college and the majority vote winner really wins.
3) CLEARLY and FIRMLY establish the seperation of church and state in ALL Matters.
4) If I were allowed a 4th – All representative may serve no more than 4 two year terms, no senator more than 2 six year terms and ALL to be elected with public funds each getting the same amount of money (including the President) and the election cycle may be no longer than 6 months from beginning to end including primaries)
The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution were geniuses. 99.9% of people on twitter are not.
Our new Constitution should start: "We, the People of Congress, in order to further our own self worth and well being . . ." At least then we'd remove the smoke and mirrors.
Some may remember that I've been saying this for years since there has been controversies over terrorism and immigration. It seems those of us born citizens or naturalized get the short end of the stick. Anyone who steps on our soil is an American? Come here, have a baby and all the relatives are Americans? I know it's not that loose but I'm pretty close. Again, my argument is, how could people forming a new country over 200 years ago, as intelligent as they were, forsee all of what is happening in the world today? We can still hold on to those "truths that are self-evident" or whatever, without giving our country away or causing it's decline. We just need to close the holes and make things more clear.
I don't think you are qualified to even attempt to write about changing the Constitution. You are obviously an idiot. The majority of Americans don't even come close to the intellect of our Founders. And if we don't base a new document on God's influence (which we wouldn't, due to said idiots), then it WILL NOT come close to being as perfect as our current one.
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote."
That's exactly why the House of Representatives was created. Senate has 2 for being in the union, meaning that states are equal to each other in importance, and the other house to represent on population.
I would revamp voting. Voting is great and and we need it, but there are a couple of problems. One is voting is largely a popularity contest, just like in high school. The better looking, more charismatic person wins, not the most qualified. Part of the problem is that it is very difficult to come by q point by point, objective comparison of all the candidate with all the data, voting history, views, campaign financing, resume, etc. This should be required by law in easily accesible form, web site and publication on all candidates. They candidates should have to answer the tough questions for the record when they campaign. The other problem is campaign financing. It should be eliminated, no person or entity can contribute to a campaign via soft or hard money, only public money can be used. This would help prevent influence by outside forces on campaigns and limit the amount of propoganda that the candidates issue.
The other problem is that the people that vote are not always representative of the population so candidates cater to the people who vote. Now you might say that if people don't vote it's their own fault, well this is true, but in the end it doesn't help anyone. Represetatives need to represent all the people in their district/state not just those that vote. If all people do not have equal representation then the whole system fails. I'm not quite sure the best answer for this, but maybe a large random sample of the population could be chosen to vote each election instead of everyone voting? Sort of like a super large jury?
The one part I take issue with is that the author somehow thinks the electoral college and the 2000 election in America are example that only America has had contested elections. His quote "And we are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system."
Perhaps the author could comment on the situation in Belgium.
Good point, Mike.
SHHHH stop making the liberal agenda look bad!
I suggested that the Constitution be scrapped for a new document way back in college, but was lambasted by my peers (most of them History majors, oddly enough) for "failing to understand" how the U.S. Constitution was still relevant today. They fell short of actually arguing that it was a timeless document, but I felt that's really what they were saying: that it never needed any such revision–just more ammendments, perhaps.
Unfortunately, as much as I feel the Constitution is outdated and out to be replaced with a new document or at least HEAVILY revised/rewritten, I also feel that there is no way it could be practically done in a country as large and as politically divided as ours. Such a project would instantly become the biggest, more important political battleground, and the process would become so corrupted that the final product would be a bloated, incoherent, failed compromise of ideals, which would most likely satisfy no one, and perhaps cripple the country by failing to provide an concrete ideological/legal structure for the nation. Our current political system is so polarized that we can't even decide on an annual budget; we should NOT be trying to tackle something as large and important as rewriting our nation's principle legal document right now.
Iceland is using Facebook and Twitter as a medium for their citizens to make suggestions. Great, if your population is only 320,000, but multiply that by 10 and you have chaos.
Our constitution may need a revision or two, but i don't think we're yet at the point where we should toss it aside and create a new one.
Just think what would happen if you multiply it by 1000.
Here is an idea. Only those who pay taxes get a vote. And make taxes optional. That would solve the majority of our current problems.
It really would.
I think that Mr. Zakaria was fully aware of why the Senate representation is the way it is. But the question is, is this the best for all? Has this deliberate miss-representation of Senators relative to the population benefited the nation or harmed it? I honestly can't say, but I’d like to know if this has every been studied. I am sure that it has had an impact on many "pork barrel" laws that have been passed.
As for the Electoral College, I agree that the States and not the Federal Government are responsible for playing politics with how these votes are apportioned, but a new constitution could rectify this quickly and easily. Popular vote makes the most sense. For years Senators were elected by state legislators and not the people. That was wrong and was changed, the Electoral College is wrong and should be removed.
If we were to draft a new constitution, the main issue I would like it to address is how to build in incentives for law makers to make the tough decisions instead of always kicking them down the road for the next generation to solve. We have known for decades that Social Security would be in trouble once the baby boomer generation began to retire, but nothing was ever done about it. Our national debt is now crushing our economy and we have seen this coming for years, but done nothing about it. I believe this is because members of Congress are always pre-occupied with being re-elected and raising taxes and cutting funding for popular programs are not winnable election strategies. Maybe longer Congressional terms are needed. Maybe less competition and more cooperation is needed by requiring greater majority agreement on legislation. Maybe a new constitution could grant greater power to committees to draft laws and less freedom to the rest of Congress to amend them.
This constitution isn't working well enough to meet the challenges that face us.
If there is no Senate. There is no union. The reason for the Boston Tea Party would be the same reason behind it. The large pop states would simply over-ride the lop pop states in every thing they do without any question in the most urgent affairs of the union. The bicameral system perfectly balances the interests of large and smaller states. It should not be tainted simply because someone doesn't understand how it works and why it is the way that it is. The large states have the House as representation of the magnitude of their Voice. The Senate serves as the voice of all States as Union Members.
Bravo, one of the most truthful, factual, and logical statements made today.
1. Abolish the electoral college – there are so many states that have historically voted for the same party's presidential candidate every election. I live in one of those states and it begs the question of why I should even for the president when I already know where the electoral votes are going.
2.Throw out all the lobbyists – most of laws are made based on money and not on justice or a sense of what is right.
3.Take the profit out of health care and and drugs. The whole system is broken as the ones that need medical treatment and drugs the most, are the least capable to afford them. It makes a sham of one of our unalienable rights – the pursuit of a healthy life.
For what's its worth, the founding fathers felt the constitution was an experiment. That in 20 or 30 years from its inception it might have to be blown up and completely redone. That in each generation the society norms and the advancement of technology would change the landscape of our society so it would at least be necessary to heavily revise the constitution, if not blow it up completely.This is what the expectation was.
So I think that Fareed's general assertion is correct. Just my 2 cents.
Don't update the Constitution. Update the people who want to change it.
No.
Term limits for all elected and appointed positions in the federal government.
John
David – If Bush slept for eight years, than why is Obama continuing many of his policies, including the War on Terror in Afganistan and the Bush tax credits? Because they were successful. By the way, why aren't you outraged that Obama went back on two campaign promises; war and taxes? He's also attacking countries without consulting or even telling congress. Yeah, you gotta hand it to those democratic presidents. You voted for him, I sure didn't. You wanted him, you got him!!!!
June 20, 2011 at 3:49 pm >>>>>>>>there is no more a danger to Americans than the Republican party!!! just look at their core philosophies...ie corporate welfare and tax cuts for the ultra mega rich....these things will turn America into a third world country!!! Do you know how a lot of the third word countries got to be that way???when the ruling wealthy class decided they owned and deserved the larger share of the nations wealth!!! how can you justify only 400 people in America have more weath than the rest of the poulation does that make sense? We need to go back to clinton tax levels that helped create 22 MILLION jobs and the brainwahsed republican base have to wake up!!!
Reductions in education, increased misinformation and distractions, and corruption of government by high influence corporations and groups from its intended purpose is all that threatens our union. Remove these, and America prospers.
A sworn peace office carries a gun. A congressman can vote to start a war that can kill hundreds of thousands. Each one of them can 'press a button' that can cause death.
The police office must pass a drug test and a psychological interview. Some law enforcement personnel must submit to lie detector tests. Even employment at Home Depot requires a drug test.
We should make elected officials pass the same strict entrance requirements as peace officers. Maybe that would weed out a few of the sex addicts, paranoid, religious fanatics or other deviants like the ones we have seen during the past few decades... and it wouldn't be a bad idea to make each one of them also pass the same test that has been suggested that regular citizens must pass before voting.
All citizens age 18 or greater must perform community service every two years. Voting shall count as community service and fulfill this obligation entirely. Alternatively, a citizen may preform 40 hours of community service with an organization of their choice that has a non-profit status and is not involved political activities, including political donations.
Making community service mandatory... nice little authoritarian government you have in the making there pal
Apparently you only read the first sentence. It is a way to require voting. The community service aspect prevents people from buying their way out of it if the penalty was a fine. One of our issues in this nation is that everyone complains but at most 50% of people vote.
This is basically saying if you don't vote then fix it yourself.
"Voting shall count as community service and fulfill this obligation entirely"
I read it, loud and clear. It's where you require someone to vote or basically face a fine of community service, that is the problem.
how about this, only people who PAY TAXES vote. that way, only the people who have their income at stake have a partial say in how it is used.
That seems to be going away from that whole democratic ideals thing. History shows us it doesn't work. It would disenfranchise millions who are unemployed through no fault of their own. A single persons may not have a dramatic impact on policy but it is a outlet to attempt to influence policy. If people don't think they have that they will take other options, ones that are more destructive to society.
by millions, you mean the 9.1% that aren't employed?
It also adds other issues to the fire. What happens when you have a stay at home parent? Are they eligible to vote? How about a person so disabled that they can not work? What do you define as taxes? Does sales tax count? If not, do we allow people to vote who work at jobs that pay so low they get all of their federal income tax back? It could get complex. If a retired person pays city or state sales tax but no federal income tax are they eligible to vote in all elections or just the city and state elections?
how about this compromise, vote only if you pay taxes. If you are unemployed, then community service can replace the tax requirement. So either way, you are contributing.
That isn't a compromise. It is doing it the way you want an penalizing those who are unemployed.
I think a mandatory voting system would generate better results. The penalty isn't so harsh that it creates an insurmountable barrier but it is harsh enough that people will probably just vote. I would add a 'none of the above' to ballots with mandatory voting and prevent anyone who was defeated by 'none of the above' from running for the same office for one full term of that office.
oh so penalizing the unemployed is bad but penalizing anyone else who doesn't want to vote is okay. See how asinine they both sound now?
The point would be to keep the masses or the unemployed/poor to vote themselves money from the population through welfare...
The point of the tax or community service requirement would be to keep the masses or the unemployed/poor to vote themselves money from the population through welfare... I see, that kind of makes sense...
@Ben
Government with mandatory voting tend to be more stable than those with optional voting. This also is true of nations with high voter turnout when compared to those with lower voter turnout.
They also tend to be more prone to having governments that compromise.
We don't need to start over. We have amended our constitution when necessary. It's the basis for our laws and lawsuits. If you completely gut the constitution, then you have to re-evaluate all laws for constitutionality.
Re-write the U.S. Constitution based on Facebook or YouTube comments! LOL!
The first thing that comes to mind is to repeal the 17th amendment to return election of Senators to the states and thus give the states a real voice in government.
If the constitution were up to modification via social media.. can you imagine the sheer magnitude of the outcry from all corners of the U.S.?
While not all direct amendment changes these are 3 that come top of mind:
Term limits for congress – the role of congress has become a career vs. a limited public service role. Some of the current members have been through multiple administrations yet continue to blame the woes of the country on the very administrations they served in yet take credit for any successes. If this was senior management at any compney they would have been fired long ago. Decisions are predominately made to prolong their lucrative careers vs. what is good for the country.
Eliminate the electoral college as it does not truly represent "by the people" but rather a "select set of people". It also opens up the system to influential powers such as lobbying groups.
Reshape the election structure to eliminate the current 2 party system. Being forced into one track or the other detracts from the core issues facing a country and immediately creates a divide on development of solutions to the issues.
1) No elected official – federal or state – may serve more than 2 terms in the same elected position.
2) The Federal budget must be balanced every year.
3) All appointed judges are limited to no more than 10 years on the bench.
AZ tried #1 for their state positions. Now they just swap offices every two terms. Their state legislature has a 90% incumbency rate if you ignore the idea that a state senator is now a representative and the reverse.
Hear, here. Exactly my choices, and in that order too.
are you nuts its why they put it that way ONE STATE GETS TWO VOTES PERIOD IN SENATE
AND IN CONGRESS ITS BASED ON POPULATION it was only way to get small states to join if you go one person one vore only east and west coast would choose pres th union would dissolve NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WHILE I BREATH solidiers took oath to protect constitution and you need 2/3 of states to ratify AGAIN NTO GONNA HAPPEN
No Mr Immigrant, its not time nor will it ever be time.
IM SO UPSET ABOUT WHAT HE TYPED I CANT EVEN TYPE IM SHAKING SO BAD need to go take blood pressure meds
"Let's revise the Constitution because we have Facebook!" Brilliant! Will every teenager with a cell phone get to vote for their favorite amendment nine times? After all, the Founders didn't have cell phones, so they couldn't possibly understand how to govern a nation.
There is already a mechanism for amending the Constitution. Two thirds of both houses must vote to propose an amendment and then 38 states must ratify it. It's supposed to be hard to change, Zakaria! You need true bipartisan support, and the buy-in of a vast majority of the nation's voters. It keeps the document from being watered down with special interest BS. The problem with our government isn't the age of the Constitution or when the flush toilette was invented, it is the people we have elected. Want to make a change? Vote wisely!!
Yes, we need a new constitutional convention to restore democracy. The Republicons are a worse threat to this country than Al Qaeda.
The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Republic under rule of law. Our government protects everyone from the belief that majority rules so that 50.1% of the population cannot tell 49.9% of the population what to do. A good example of a PURE democracy was the French Revolution - all in favor of taking off her head, raise your hands.
They're INFIDELS to tell you the truth.
I thought Osama Bin Laden was most Evil. The Rethugs amazingly beat Osama Bin Laden on this scale.
amend constitution – Restore NATIONALISM!!! You are either American or you are not!!! NO DUAL CRAP!!!
Hey, I have a better idea. Instead of trying to change the constitution lets try to follow it! The constitution is the supreme law of the land. That being said, one cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. So what is this cr*p about eminent domain? Tax leins on homes and property because of failing to obey an HOA? Needing a license for selling lemonade? How about applying the constitution to any law being passed? That way you'll know when government is overreaching. Don't change the constitution - ENFORCE IT.
Where do we get the idea that we are a democratic government. The founding of our government is a representative republic. Democracies are mob rule! Is the Electoral College obsolete? No it still allows for small voices to make a difference. The only democratic form of government is the Congress where the majority rule on legislation. It is true the powers of the President and Judiciary have taken on increased powers, this only because we the people have allowed it. You want to limit congress and Senate to term limits, then vote them out to have that power.
I have just one simple change that I think would greatly improve the legal system:
All Supreme Court decisions must be decided by the vote of a minimum of two judges. There are nine judges, if none have recused a binding decision would have to pass by a 6-3 margin. The law should not be open to subjective opinions, to change the law of the land by one vote suggests that it's not a clear decision and should not be binding.
Seriously? Zakaria is still crying over the Al Gore loss? When will the Left get over the fact that he lost? Sure, let's just toss out the Constitution because you didn't get your way. I wish people would "Move On" and get over it.
Zakaria isn't alone in his misunderstanding of the Constitution, the Electoral College, and the Senate though. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post had a similar "oh woe is the Left" moment earlier this year, referenced in this article: http://uscommonsense.net/2011/05/19/ezra-klein-young-voters-and-the-electoral-college/
The Senate isn't "even more undemocratic" as Zakaria complains. The Senate is purely democratic in it's role, as representation of the sovereign States that make up the Union. It is the House that represents the people – both those from Wisconsin and California alike – Mr. Zakaria. Maybe you missed that in school one day.
Gore didn't lose, the election was stolen by Bush and his toadies in Florida and in the Supreme Court. This was patently obvious to anybody that paid any attention at all to the proceedings.
Keep believing that if it makes you feel better. You can join your friends who feel that 9/11 was an inside job and that Obama was born in Kenya while you're at it.
It's unusual that I disagree with Mr Zakaria, but this is one of those times.
"The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic..."
The Electoral College exists because the founders of the country knew full well the dangers of mob rule. The purpose of the College is to provide a check on that possibility
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic..."
The Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the individual states, not of individual people–that's the role of the House. The so-called "Great Compromise" that established the Senate was meant to keep small states from becoming the victims of more populous large states, and to keep all states from becoming the victims of the federal government. Given outrageous usurpation by the federal government of the powers reserved to the states, the role of the Senate needs to be strengthened, not reduced. The Seventeenth Amendment, making Senators the representatives of the people rather than of the states, was a big mistake and should be repealed.
stop trampling on the liberal parade with the truth!
Excellent post sir, the country would be better off if all voters knew and remembered things such as what you have stated
Given today's level of intelligence and common sense among the adult population of the US – I suggest leaving it alone. Before you'd blink an eye – it would be full of religious doctrine, anti-anything not "True American"ism and show no compassion for those less privileged or those who believe differently.
Using social media to manage our lives and affairs? Maybe you advocate having Anthony Weiner lead the way. How did that work for him? Maybe the author of this article would be better served writing fantasy movie reviews rather than delve in such important issues as US History and affairs.
Wait a DAMN minute! You have a muslim coming to our country informing Americans whose familys have been here since the beginning, telling us that it is time to update our constitution? I say; "America, love it or leave it"! We do not need foriegnors telling us it is time to corupt our constitution. You should be fired be suggesting such a thing!
you're racist
All of you idiots wanting a flat tax rate are killing me. The INCOME TAX began as a single, FLAT tax. If you are going to do anything tax wise, repeal the 16th Amendment (income tax amendment) and institute a National Sales tax via the Fair Tax plan which protects the poor with a monthly rebate and hits the wealthy, those who spend more pay more.
Numbers prove the middle class pays a higher percentage of income, social security, and other taxes than the upper or lower taxes. We give tax breaks to the lower class and we put a cap on taxes to benefit the upper class. Look at Social Security which is capped at 103,000 taxable income per year. Remove the cap and flatten the percentage out.
We NEED the electorial college in the US to make every state's vote count. Why would the President care about Wyoming? They would only care about heavily populated areas. Why not put a nuclear waste site in Montana? The 2000 election showed that Presidential canidates need to care about every state. If Al Gore had won just one more state (including Wyoming, New Hampshire ect) He would have been the president. It makes every state in our Union important not just the large population centers.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why people want to get rid of the electoral college
no one should be president without the popular vote. That's counter-inuitive and is evidence of people gaming the system.
+1
The more I read these responses the more I realize that the contributors are more intelligent than the author of the article.
If a new constitution were to be written (hypothetically), we should DEFINITELY leverage the intelligence of video game system designers/engineers. When I say system i don't mean console, but systems which govern combat etc.
These engineers spend their entire careers developing abstraction and balance of power between different entities. Their input would be invaluable creating a 3 part system with a series of checks to keep any one part from becoming more powerful than intended (it's safe to say all 3 branches of government are stronger than the constitution writers intended
While I doubt many people will take you seriously, I think that is a brilliant suggestion. The thing is, any government or system that sounds great "in theory", tends to be "gamable" in practice....that is, people can manipulate it to their interests. That's why we have political parties (people trying to game the tendency of plurality voting reward people with similar values to "pre filter"), lobbying, tax shelters, etc. Just about every problem in government comes from more and more sophisticated attempts to manipulate things in ones' favor. Video game designers, as well as designers of such things as search engines, karma systems, etc deal with this in very sophisticated ways.
1st We need an amendment to our constatution that will make this type of capitalistic goverment that we have chosen to become more fair and promissing for the working class citizens. 2nd. We need an admendment to create and guarantee an annual living wage to relieve the uncertany of our citizens post work life. 3rd. An admendment that will make our countrys direction reflect all the people, not just the 51 or 55% of Americans attached to the winning political party.
So you would have a system that helps every one fairly, yet the ones who need no help because of good choices in life, and savings would not be apart of your new system, just the ones who screwed up and didn't save nor prepare for old age. Yep that's the lib's fair system. Help the ones who made poor choices, and give the bill to those who made smart choices
Do you really trust the populist yahoos of social networking to write a new Constitution that would be an improvement on the old, Fareed?
Your name sounds like you're already at a loss.
Yes, "WE THE PEOPLE" trust the "YAHOO's" social media to re-write the New US Constitution instead of by a bunch of white folks. We as citizens have NO right to stop a 4th or 5th war brewing over the horizon under Obama whilst millions of Americans are suffering, unemployed, school closings, outrageous gas prices and the lists goes on.
Very simple changes.
All people get equal protection under that law despite their race, creed, color, nation or state of origin, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation. Period.
The state and all cults/churches/corporations are to be separate. Only the human citizens of this great land will have a say in what laws are passed. All elections begin and end on a level playing field, with no donations allowed from anybody.
No taxes are to be collected from those that have little. Our economic system will place the burden of supporting a national government on the backs of those that can afford it and those that benefit most from it.
The military is to protect the people and is not to be used as a tool of government to pursue religious or economic goals. It must be a direct vote of the people to send troops into conflict.
Well, that's a start at least...
I have got a good to be considered for the New US Constitution.
The US Constitution should be AMENDED to give BACK ALL the stolen LANDS BACK to its ORIGINAL OWNERS, aka The Native Americans and ask ALL white folks to go back to where they came from in Europe. They can then re-apply to enter.
It is a birthright of every human being to a full, intact body. This includes a full, intact genital organ. Neonatal circumcision, both male and female, should be illegal in the United States. A full, intact body should be a constitutionally protected right.
Nice. "All citizens have a right to foreskin." This is exactly why it needs to be difficult to change the constitution.
Hey Buddy! You're crossing a line that should NEVER be crossed.
I'm FULLY circumcised. What's our problem? Don't envy those of us who are FULLY circumcised. The women LOVVVVVVEEEEEE FULLY circumcised men and not some wacky thing hanging by some coil spring preventing the full bloom of natural mushroom head to be admired. Do you even know the respect you get from women for FULLY circumcised Ice Cream Cone? You're missing out, Buddy. You just jealous!
Never again will we have politicians who were soley focused on ensuring government is restrained. If you open up Washington for a Constitutional update, the amount of Lobbyists and corrupt concepts that will be embedded will make us all wish we never scrapped the only document in the world which empowered the people over the rulers.
We are the ONLY county where the government is restrained from exerting it's force from the people. Even the UK has power over the people, they just make it look like they are free. In America, we truly are free from government invasion.... which is slowly eroding and has been for years.
1st suggested amendment: public financing for political candidates who meet a predetermined minimum number of signatures on a petition for office. Private and corporate donations would be illegal. The cost would be minimal compared to money lost to lobbyists and special interests.
2nd suggested amendment: a six-year presidency, with no re-election. As it is now, the first 2 years of a first term produce modest accomplishments. The next 2 yield nothing in the face of a run for re-election.
3rd suggested amendment: Term limits- senators, 3 terms = 18 years; representatives, 9 terms = 18 years. That's enough.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a living document that has changed as it has been needed. The U.S. Constitutaion has survived for over 200 years! The U.S. has the largest economy in the world with a strong millitary, lower taxes then most of the western world, with a very good standard of living. If we need something changed, we can focus on the one item and get the needed votes to make an ammendment.
I for one support the Republic that we are as opposed to a "true" democracy. A democracy is a wonderful concept, but not everyone can know everything, and in many cases it is BEST that only a few know of things. Example is war time and trading policies. We should have a private strategy with people in office, so that bargaining and winning of wars can occur.
I say we scrap the constitution and start over.
The Constitution was designed not only for majority rule but for the protection of the rights of the minority from an overzellious majority. The make-up of Congress into two houses was designed for just that purpose. Remember this is the United STATES of America, not the United Peoples of America. States with small populations insisted on having equal representation in Congress with larger states. The Senate ensures this equal representation and midigates the power larger states would have over a federal govt.
exactly where does this Fareed Zackass find the nerve to question the American Constitution anyway , I'd like to take away HIS freedom of speach , but alas we can't cause it's in the first amendment to what again??
Mr. Zakaria, please do not take this personally, but maybe you'd want to ask that question to your country of birth. While our Constitution does have several flaws, it does however have a process to address those flaws, as you may know. Now here is a question for you an anyone who may agree with you... who gets to decide what things are added, taken away or "updated", our politicians... the people who vote or don't vote based on who they like and who's currently winning or who tells the best "lie"? Can you imagine what would happen if you "suggestion" were to even be attempted?
Doesn't the idea of drafting a Constitution through social media and the internet cut out those who are not adept in those mediums? I thought our concern was giving everyone a voice?
The electoral college has bothered me for a long while. It is conceivable (albeit unlikely) that a candidate can win 13 large states by a single vote each, lose the other 37 states by the millions, and still become elected POTUS.
I think a better way to do it would be to distribute electoral college votes based on the percentage of popular vote received (may need to do some tricks with rounding...round winner up and loser down, for instance). That way, every vote truly matters. Further, it would require candidates to treat each state with some measure of respect; whether they expected to win the overall state or not.
During the last election, Obama won 365 electoral college votes to 173 for McCain. That looks like a wipeout. However, based off of percentages, it should have been something more like 285 to 247. Obama still wins, but he'd do so understanding that it was a very close race.
If both parties had understood how close the election was, perhaps the last 2 years of posturing give way to a more collegial atmosphere.
Yeah right, who am I kidding.
The USA is a Republic, we do NOT live in a democracy, nor were we ever intended to. That is the first thing Mr. Zakariah needs to get through his head. The Senate was never intended to have its membership popularly elected , they were supposed to be elected by thier state legislatures, and their job was intended to represent the interest of the state, not the populace.
Why would we want to emulate a country that obviously failed, in 1944, to provide a principled Constitution?
Easy/equitable way to settle this: let's see how well Iceland's new Constitution holds up after a span of...say...222 years.
population of 320K. A joke of a comparison. although farred it has a free market economy and a lower taxes than its neighbors what do you think of that, Son.
America is still the envy of every nation....at its core its our constitution....
ALL of you are a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks... You have no idea what you are talking about, you are regurgitating information you have read somewhere else. Our creator endowed us with a brain that works quite well if you didnt already know. Why not try using it and posting comments that are your own ideas and not something you read on the internet. We all know you are not intelligent...
Put it too rest... the Electorial College is put in place for one thing, so a politician can't say "Elect me and no one in NY, CA, TX FL, and MA will pay taxes, everyone else will"
Without the electoral college, which balances the needs of each states as equal shares prevents a candidate from favoring only the major states.
The fact that this is even debated, and with so many comments getting it so wrong, is an example that we need to kill the federal department of education, becuase it isn't working...
Zakaria...........................time for you to GO....................GO BACK where you belong.................go and ride a camel to work..............you and your brethren are really not wanted in this country................
Would not it be fun to write a new constitution based on the EU's that is 300 odd pages long with special exemptions that make our tax code look like child's play? I would like to offer up one ammendment: "Congress shall pass no law that does not apply equaly to itself and all citizens"
Change "We the people" to "We the lobbyists" and the biggest part has been taken care of, though the way I am feeling, that change has already been made, but updating all the old existing copies of the constitution would just be too expensive.
ALL of you are a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks... You have no idea what you are talking about, you are regurgitating information you have read somewhere else. Our creator endowed us with a brain that works quite well if you didnt already know. Why not try using it and posting comments that are your own ideas and not something you read on the internet. We all know you are not intelligent... SUCKAS ALL OF YOU ARE SUCKAS
"...Our Creator...", and who would that be, the same creator that allows all of the strife and hunger and war to go on in our lives... or would that be the "Creator" that allows our politicians to steal from us? YOU need to wake up, because things today have changed from whence you'd have them revert.
Humanity's overpopulation causes hunger.
Humanity's overpopulation and acts of evil cause war and shortages.
This world has everything we need if we didn't act like a cancer.
A politician's actions are his own fault of his free choice.
Stop blaming your Creator for the acts of your species. If you had a perfect world, you'd probably complain about there being no challenge and it being boring next.
Son
There is a reason the constitution has worked so incredibly well for Americans since the inception. You don't simply throw the baby out with the bath water because a select number of people feel that certain inadequacies need to be addressed.
The constiution can be changed but only after deliberate thought and debate. It was structured this way so that our leaders would not be rash in their political decisions and not make fundamental changes without first receiving the input of the American people. Without that protection this country would move drastically towards becoming a monarchy rather than a republic.
I for one am thankful that the founders had the insight to predict the human nature of this countries future leaders and establish protections ensuring that we, the people, have a role in determining how this country is governed.
Ridiculous proposal.
Unlike other nations, the US Constitution (and in particular, the Bill of Rights) isn't a mere operational road map for governance. It's an ideological polemic, stood against (and learned from) thousands of years tyrannical missteps.
To be sure, we've occasionally erred on our application of those principles... It took us too long to get rid of slavery, then too long to establish the building blocks of true equality.. but the fundamental ideas laid out in the Bill of Rights resonate through the ages and remain as fresh and relevant today than they were the day they were drafted.
Anyone who proposes we scrap the constitution and start anew is simply showing a deep misunderstanding of what that document really is. In proposing this, Mr. Zakaria demonstrates he hails from a civilization totally alien to our own. In short, he "doesn't get it" on what the US Constitution really is.
Wow, I'm shocked at the lack of research and reason displayed in this article. I feel like what I learned in grade school and later during my college years completely contradicts what Mr. Zakaria is saying. Even then I saw the genius of the Electoral College AND the way our Senate is structured (although I find term limits to be an interesting idea).
Look beyond our Founding Fathers to the larger-than-life men of the Jacksonian era of politics. Read what these luminaries thought of our government system–flawed but far from the debacle described above.
If anything these "undemocratic issues" actually help safeguard the rights of the "little guy".
If you do away with the Electoral College and opt for a direct vote of the people, presidents will only be elected by the largest states. All the campaign promises and pandering will be focused in the largest urban centers. The cost of campaigns will skyrocket as attention is only paid to large-markets. The needs of the smaller, less densely populated states will be ignored. In fact, the process will become less democratic than it is currently.
ICELAND ?
I have several things I would like to see.
1. The framers of the constitution wanted to prevent direct democracy because of the rule of the mob. That is even more a danger now than it was then, because of the ability of a few rich persons to stampede the whole country into doing what the few rich people want, or elect who the rich want. This is even more of a problem now that corporations have been granted the power to spend whatever they want on elections. So, far from abolishing the electoral college, I would strengthen it to make it independent of parties, independent of elected officials, and separate from the government entirely. Let the electors be on a ballot to be elected for themselves, because of their perceived wisdom and intelligence, and prohibit them from promising to vote for a particular person. Let them come together in a public convention to choose the next president and vice president. They could even draft a a person who is not even running for president, which would actually be a great step forward. It could even be determined that anyone actually running for president would not be eligible for becoming president. For the position of elector, no current members of government need apply.
As a second best possibility, let all members of state legislatures come together as electors to choose the president and vice president, because they are independent of the federal government and have already been elected by the people.
2. The two-party system is destroying this nation by pitting two artificial factions against each other. Even though conservatives and liberals both have valid points of view that both need to be heard for this country to operate, instead the two parties demonize each other, while the rich and corporations pay both of them off behind the table in order to rob the country blind. I would say make it possible for multiple parties to have power instead of the winner-take-all method we have now for every congressional district. One way (I'm sure there are other ways) would be for every person to choose the person they want to be represented by in the House of Representatives, and if that person has enough people supporting him or her then that person goes to congress. That way there wold be no need to have elections, just collect signatures until the number of people equals the number found in a typical congressional district, and make sure nobody chooses more than one person. I personally don't want to be represented by either a Democrat or a Republican, but rather by someone independent of dogmatic ideology and not beholden to party bosses. This way every person is represented by someone they actually want to be represented by. Another way is to allow people can change their preference at elections and anyone with enough votes gets to be a representative. There are ways to guarantee that any "excess" votes are not wasted, such as ranking the representatives instead of choosing just one.
3. Commercial Corporations are not persons. They have no conscience of their own, and no motive besides to grow. Corporations are simply pools of money, sometimes giant pools of money, and they have no motive or conscience of their own. They do not deserve the right to free speech. All the evil done by corporations is done by people who feel obligated to act to make that money grow, regardless of the consequences to anyone or anything else. Those people try to influence government in order to help the pile of money grow. The best of those people are subject to a group-think process that makes them lose sight of the human consequences, and the worst of them use the immense power of the giant pools of money to enrich themselves.
People inside the corporations have plenty of ways to be represented in the government without the corporation pretending to "speak" for them while actually speaking only for their own profit. Therefore I would prohibit corporations from spending any money on elections or the crafting of laws. If the people want to have laws that favor particular companies or industries, they can make that opinion known to their representatives. Prohibit lobbyists for corporations from contributing any money, and require them to represent only themselves as human beings.
4. On a similar note, anyone who is in a position to regulate business should have strict controls on their ability to get jobs and other compensation from the industry they regulate. This should be true regardless of whether the regulator is elected or staff appointed.
5. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, need to be independent of the political process, so I would not want to change the law to elect them nor give them shorter terms. However I would make them more accountable by allowing the full complement of federal judges to recall a particular Supreme Court justice for incompetence or blatant bias, such as we see on the Supreme Court today. After all, it was a majority of the court that found that the people's right to fair and impartial elections is not as important as the "right" to speedy elections, a "right" which is not found in the constitution at all.
6. It should be explicit in the constitution that money is not speech. Money is power, and in this context it is the ability to make your own speech heard instead that of anyone else, or in other words to power to suppress free speech. A person running for office would be prohibited from accepting money from any commercial organization such as a commercial corporation or a union, or from any ideological political organization, especially parties, which can be used to launder money in order to get around prohibitions on donations by corporations.
7. I wouldn't impose term limits on representatives because it takes time to become an expert on the legislative process. Term limits therefore make the legislature weaker and the executive branch more powerful, and lobbyists too. However, I would make sure that all elected representatives do not ever have to spend their time raising money for reelection. Provide public funds for every incumbent to mount a competitive campaign for reelection, which means being able to match the funds that challengers are spending. The country will come out way ahead financially if it is willing to spend this money.
8. I would get rid of all the obscure laws and practices that make the government really anti-democratic, and not just in the sense of this being a republic instead of a direct democracy. Get rid of filibusters, secret holds, minority blocks to appointments, etc. Get rid of secret meetings, such as the energy policy meetings between Dick Cheney and all the oil companies or meetings between Obama and Goldman Sachs. Make it transparent and force representatives to make public what they are doing.
9. Finally, in today's political climate, any Constitutional Convention is liable to be bought by corporations or political parties, rich people and friends of rich people. Maybe it could be run entirely by people whose careers make them more or less independent of the political process, and whose duties include the expectation (though not always the reality) of impartiality, such as judges and academics. Judges have practical real world experience in the immediate consequences of laws, and academics have deep theoretical knowledge of social policy and long term effects of laws.
Get the FU CK away from my CONSTITUTION!
You point out a major flaw...it protects douche bags like you.
As well as douche bags like you...
Fareed – The framers already anticipated that the power hungry control freaks would want to trash the Constitution so they allowed for the amendment process. If that is too difficult to invoke change then that should tell us something. Usurping the Constitution is the last step to Tyranny. If you want to amend the constitution by all means make your case.
Well Fareed, I suppose you expected this flurry of responses. I usually tell people they can take your opinions to the bank. But I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your discussion of the "problems" presented by how the Senate is constituted. I think the framers had it just right. The great state of Rhode Island is great, not because of its population, but because it was a part of the enterprise that created our country, then our constitution. If the Senate were to be proportional to population, then 1) why even have it? and 2) what to do about the concerns of the smaller (in population) states?
corporations are not people, hence they have no patriotism or loyalty!!! Thats why all our jobs get sent over seas to ungrateful developing nations...
Yea, I'd agree this author Fareed Zakaria has no clue about why the Senate gives every state 2 senators each. It was designed so that small states could have an "Equal" say as large states in the Congress. The House of Representatives bases representation on population, but every state is guaranteed to have at least one representative. This author's lack of knowledge would totally disenfranchise smaller states. CNN ought to terminate him for his ignorance.
I think highly of your intelect Fareed but you are very wrong on this. All you have to do is read the postings on CNN stories from time to time to see that direct democracy of the idiot masses is not what we need. We need the elite, highly educated in a closed environment making the decisions. That's why the Constitution has worked for so long and why we need an electoral college. And we need a senate so big states can't always get their way over small states; it's a balance. This is your worst idea ever.
I don't think highly of his intellect.
INGENIOUS! If we keep thinking like that, we can emulate Somalia or Afghanistan and all our standards of living will rise!
Who the HELL is Fareed Zakaria??? He's an ignoramous, that's who he is. I'll trust James Madison, Ben Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson over this guy with a Muslim name any day. After all, show me ONE Muslim country that has a functioning democracy. There is none. CNN, stop letting these ignorant people post editorials.
First – having an Arabic (not Muslim...) name does not make one either Arabic OR Muslim. Second, regardless of his name, he's not saying anything that Thomas Jefferson himself didn't believe.
It's Arab not Arabic.
Muslim Democracy: Turkey
You are not a smart person.
It's not so much rewriting The Constitution that bothers me. It's the fact that I don't trust anyone in office at the moment from either party or otherwise to do the job correctly and fairly.
The Constitution should be re-written with a few important protections for taxpayers. A maximum percent of income and assets should be included (ex. no taxypayer should ever be required to pay more than 10% (or some reasonable amount) in taxes)....this should include all federal, state, and local taxes, so that they could not just shift things around.
Along with this needs to be a balanced budget requirement. We have to have a healthy economy, not burdened by massive debt. The government needs to be able to respond to economic emergencies, not be the cause of them.
Federal elections should be one person, one vote. Period.
Although the 2 party system is not in the Constitution, the Constitution needs to be rewritten to protect democracy. You cannot have a true democracy with a 2 party system, and 2 party systems should be prohibited by the Constitution. There needs to be a level playing field, with the current parties losing their monopoly on power.
I'd put in an Amendment to replace the Supreme Court who are nothing more than political hacks with a computer programmed to understand language and words. That would save the country a lot of money and a lot of needless bantering over the Court nominees. I mean if you look at instant replay, you see it's more accurate than the umps or refs. The same would be true of an elitist , top schools in the Country only, Supreme bunch of illiterate political hacks who can't recognize the human bladder is an organ in the human person which should be immune to unlawful search, such as in random drug testing.
written by an Indian who comes from a corrupt country without a constitution – omg what a loser
I can see that you know nothing about India at all. India does have a constitution, and you can read it if you want. Also, India is not a corrupt country and it is an emerging superpower. There are problems but, they are getting better. Next time, if you put a comment here, research it first.
The following is a little piece of general knowledge Bob. Hope this helps you to understand Mr. Zakaria's native country.
The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world, containing more than 395 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 110 amendments, for a total of 117,369 words in the English language version. It is the supreme law of India. It lays down the framework defining fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers and duties, government and spells out the fundamental rights, directive principles and duties of citizens. It declares the Union of India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty, and endeavours to promote among them all, fraternity. The words "socialist", "secular", and "integrity" were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment. India celebrates the adoption of the constitution on 26 January each year as Republic Day. It was passed by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, it came into effect on 26 January 1950. 26 January was chosen to commemorate the declaration of independence of 1930. After coming into effect, the Constitution replaced the Government of India Act 1935 as the governing document of India.
Aap kya kaha rahe ho?
Kya aap Bharat ke bare mem pata hai?
are you nuts its why they put it that way ONE STATE GETS TWO VOTES PERIOD IN SENATE
AND IN CONGRESS ITS BASED ON POPULATION it was only way to get small states to join if you go one person one vote only east and west coast would choose pres the union would dissolve NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WHILE I BREATH solidiers took oath to protect constitution and you need 2/3 of states to ratify AGAIN not GONNA HAPPEN
all the smaller staes would leave union we are a republic
I would propose an amendment that mandates that the eventual costs to society from business activities shall be levied against the businesses that cause those additional costs. As it stands today tobacco companies don't pay the full cost for the 400,000+ deaths they cause in the U.S. each year, not to mention the pain and suffering and other consequential damages. If Wall Street wants to be reckless with financial products, perhaps they should be levied for that recklessness. Businesses should pay directly for polluting the air and water. Certain businesses in the food industry should pay for the costs associated with obesity and diabetes. Remediation or remuneration should be paid for by the companies that inflict the damage. If the fast food industry causes certain health care costs, why should taxpayers or health insurance consumers pay for this? If the eventual costs that result from certain products and activities are priced into those same products and activities, they are discouraged. If not, the burden is shifted to others and the damaging products and activities are effectively subsidized.
The amendment could read: All commerce shall be assessed, as precisely as practicable, for the costs and burdens inflicted by their products or activities.
All commercial businesses shall be assessed...
The constitution does not even mention the word "democracy" in it, which is kind of ironic. it seems as if when it was drafted, they thought that the rich and those in power would care for everybody, but they did not realize that greed plays a huge factor. The constitution should be revised so it caters to everybody in every class.
My only concern with the term limits topic is that I fear what they would do if they weren't concerned with re-election. Many don't generally care what their constituents want now, even though they wish to be elected again. And, we saw what the outgoing pols did this last election, after they had lost their jobs. Worrying about their next gig is the only thing that almost keeps them honest. Can you imagine what they'd do if they knew they were leaving anyway?
Term limits/age limits, lobbyist need to be eliminated, priveledgesI(perks) that government officials and their families receive during office need be eliminated, people who already have corrupt backgrounds should not be allowed to go into office or stay in office, periodic background checks on officials is crucial and needs to be done.
Fareek Zakaria is playing with fire here.
If the US Constitution was "updated" at this point in our history, we would end up with LESS rights, not more and the government would have MORE powers, not less. This is a DANGEROUS IDEA.
Hallelujah! (non-religious connotation for anybody who has a problem with it)
If you don't like the current constituation, you have the right to leave the good ole USA. Leave now!
So you are telling people to get out of the country for exercising the freedoms the constitution protects.
A simplistic explanation of the Constitution at best. I guess the argument might make sense when you base your analysis on Cliffs Notes version of American History. It fails to recognize the impact of letting one region run roughshod over the others. California, despite its massive population, is hardly in a position to make decisions for dairy farmers in one state, auto workers in another, etc. The Senate and the Electoral College provide balance for the minority against the size of the majority. To eliminate either is to toss out a basic element of American Democracy – rule by the majority with protection for the minority.
Just what I needed to start my day...a Pakistani retard working for the Communist News Netword telling me (a true American) that I need my Constitution re-written so that he and his liberal pals can force me to pay for more things that they're not willing to, like Obamacare. I've read the Constitution. I don't see anything that really can't be applied now a days. It's a document that liberals don't like b/c it guarantees true Americans the rights of freedom, most importantly that the federal government can't rule over us. Instead of re-writing the Constitution, I have a better idea...let's round up all the liberals, buy them all one way tickets to Europe, and wave goodbye to them forever. That sounds nice!
You make me happy, I'm clapping for you in my grave.
Wow. "A true American", huh? What does that mean exactly? Should I use your your words as evidence of what "a true American" is?
Do you actually believe that Republicans care about the people or the Constitution? I don't believe in our government and I don't believe the leaders of our country care what your views are or mine. Our government is broken and I don't think it can possibly be fixed without drastic measures. Even then we would be changing one God for another so what does it matter?
Yeah, actually it DOES sound nice.
"...let's round up all the liberals, buy them all one way tickets to Europe, and wave goodbye to them forever." Then you could descend into Third World status much more quickly.
Sticks and stones will break my bones..... "State's Rights".... do you enjoy the hgandgun that you own ? Do you enjoy depriving gay people from civil union ? Do you enjoy living in the 18th century...? Hey, you may even think that our present economic problems will be solved if we lower the taxes of the rich people... Oh well.. Barnum said that there would be a sucker born every day... he did not add that there would be an idiot as well..
We do not need a constitutional overhaul. Unlike other countries, we've kept our constitution on the short and simple side: enough direction to give the country stability, but not so prescribed such that there is no room for flexibility over time. Any amendment that would alter the nature of the Senate or Electoral College would change the very nature of our country, that of a federation of quasi-sovereign states.
There are two "housekeeping"-type amendments that I can think of.
1) The nature of the Constitutional Convention that can be called by 2/3 of the states has no description. Because no one knows how such a convention would operate, none have been called in our entire history. This hinders the states' abilities to propose amendments. I would overhaul the amendment process as such: amendments can be proposed by 2/3 of each house of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures OR amendments can be proposed by 2/3 of the state legislatures and ratified by 3/4 of each house of Congress.
2) It is unconscionable that Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and limit the subject matters of the lower federal court. In this way, Congress can effectively amend the Constitution by a simple law. We are fortunate that this power has seldom be used. I would propose ratifying and amendment that would prohibit Congress from limiting subject matter jurisdiction.
Our government was originally created as a Republic based somewhat off of the extensive readings that the founding fathers had done regarding Cicero. They wanted to find a balance learning from those that had gone before them.
Our founding fathers were very much concerned about the government protecting the rights and voices of individuals and of minority groups. Individual voices and minority groups have little influence on a government where the majority has absolute power. The founding fathers were worried about the majority becoming much like a monarch (which they had just escaped) and having that kind of power over all lording it over everyone and squashing voices that didn't agree with them.
Therefore the government was built to have a set of checks and balances to make sure that both the majority and also the individuals had influence. The house of reps basically gives most of the power to the majority. If California and New York wants something a certain way then they could potentially squash the voice of rhode island entirely on every single thing. The Senate was created to give the smaller groups at least some power too so that they could have at least some power to make sure that not all their rights were squashed and stomped out of existence. These two houses work hand in hand to create the laws that we all live by.
So to rethink the Senate is in effect moving us more toward the possibility of a despotic monarchy where the majority is always the one who gets its way. This sounds good until you are someone who doesn't agree with the majority. Sometimes the majority is moving on a mob mentality and needs something to bring it back into check.
No need to point fingers. This is just a very bad idea in general and I think the vast majority of the U.S. population who has graduated High School would agree.
The electoral college and equal senate representation are vital. They preserve the power of the states. We already live in a soft tyranny imposed by the malingering majority on the productive minority. Our forefathers correctly saw this coming when they severly restricted the powers of the govt and allowed the citizens the rights to speak, assemble, and bear arms.
People like you are way too impressed with yourselves. We really don't need your ilk solving our problems. We need personal and market freedom to prosper, nothing more.
I am a natualized citizen of America. The more I have enjoyed the freedom to be responsible under the US constitution, the more respect I have for the founding fathers. With a bunch of corrupt crooks in the congress and senate, we just cannot trust anyone to make any changes. The founding fathers were committed to the state and God. Let those values prevail forever.
Cheers to you, my friend.
This article completely lost me when it suggested that the US Senate needs to be reconsidered. There is a process for amending the constitution. It is seldom followed because so few things require such gravity. There are many issues for which amending the constitution can be legitimately proposed. However, abolition of the Senate is not one of them. Just imagine how things would work with a one person one vote mentality. The state of California has a budget problem. As such, it decides to partner with New York and Washington to out vote all the other states and establish that those three states shall benefit from limitless funding while exempting their own citizens from taxes. A crazy example? Yes. However, this clearly shows why our government is the way it is.
Oh and #3 I would institute term limits for Congress.
I think Mr. Zakaria understands constitution and the sham democracy it creates better than most people on the planet. Democracy can be the best form of government if it is implemented properly or it can be bad as a dictatorship or even as bad as slavery depending on how it is abused. Currently all democracies are undemocratic. Poor voters get to vote once every four years. Then the elected representatives spend like bandits without ever asking the voters if they have the voters' permission to spend on useless multi-billion dollar projects. When the congress or administration spends like there is no tomorrow, the poor tax payers are left on the hook for years to come. Tax payers have no say before the expenditures are made in their name. Ordinary voters and tax payers work hard and pay their taxes while the governments intentionally keep committing more of tax payers' money without ever asking them first and also in order to keep them working like slaves for generations to come. Good luck democracies with the selfish politicians are ruining your future while they are enriching themselves. So here is an idea for constitution and make it article number 1. Government shall not spend money on projects for which it does not have tax payers' direct approval.
There should be a separate Bill of Rights concerning businesses dealing with citizens and the government. It was not thought of how businesses would have an influence on the nation when the original Bill of Rights, while well thought out, was made.
A corporation or institution:
1. Cannot do business in America if it violates human rights, if it is unlawful, if it conducts animal cruelty or if it is reliant on harming the environment, in any part of the world. A corporation outsourcing to another company guilty of the previous is at risk of losing rights to conduct business in the United States of America.
2. Will be eligible for tax deductions or government assistance based on sustainability, fair-trade, employing domestic workers, technological advancements, charity or other benefit to society.
3. Will be taxed appropriately for doing business in a nation that uses an artificial currency exchange rate. This is to compensate for artificial trade imbalances. Companies will not be subsidized by the government for the fuel costs of shipping goods from other countries. Neither will companies be subsidized for negligent practices.
4. Must use fair pricing, even for debts. Companies cannot charge above 15% on interest, or the national interest rate, if that is higher. Practices for an amount already owed cannot be changed. A contract statement inferring a debt policy can be changed at will is invalid.
5. Must hold all preferred stock private. Common stock can be made available to the public markets. This keeps businesses' decisions away from those not involved in its production or services. Public stockholder's interests are generally based on profit, and not on improving the company's integrity. Hostile takeovers are also prevented. Public shareholders are still allowed to invest to benefit and generate capital for businesses.
An elected official of the government must temporarily give up preferred stock for the time in office. This is to prevent leaders who makes rules to benefit their business at the expense of the country, and for the same reason an individual cannot hold two seats in office.
6. Cannot be outsourced for government infrastructure. The government must produce its own currency and military equipment. Newly made water and electric distribution will be made, owned and operated by the government. Corporations are not prevented from providing complementary services for public usage. Certain services may be rented out for corporate use. The best minds or talent may be made available, so long as its not a threat to national security. Companies can be compensated for use of its employees or resources in government projects.
Make this a second Economic Bill of Rights. The original constitution is masterful and changing that is too risky.
7. Has restrictions against lobbying. Also, government officials are not allowed to use the government to advance their affiliated businesses. (An elected official of the government must temporarily give up preferred stock for the time in office. This is to prevent leaders who makes rules to benefit their business at the expense of the country, and for the same reason an individual cannot hold two seats in office.)
8. Trade and economic laws. (those that have been repealed in the last decade belong here)
Basic economic rights: (such as been proposed in the past)
9. Secure housing – Restrictions against foreclosures. Hold banks liable. (some of the secure economies such as South Korea and Singapore are based on secure housing)
10. Education – Student loan forgiveness for engineer, medical or economically relevant related degrees at qualifying educational institutions. Reimbursement for high grades toward relevant degrees and core courses. Regulation and price caps on corporate educational institutions. Upgrade of the educational system.
11. Healthcare access – Privileges for those in the medical field. Advancement in the medical field to reduce costs and provide better treatments using ethical means. Provide affordable healthcare. Free preventative health services. Free healthcare for those under 21 and of old age. Economic security for injured persons. Option to be taxed to receive government healthcare coverage. Emergency treatment cannot be denied for anyone, unless there is a shortage.
12. Labor laws -
Let's remember that the founding fathers were men, not gods. Very great, but not perfect, individuals who had great ideas but ideas that aren't above debate. I think we need to stop thinking of the constitution as "unquestionable truth" and not just fall back on the idea that if Jefferson, Franklink, and Madison wrote it then it's practically heresy to even question it.
It was written by 39 men who all agreed on core principles to best serve a country, the were committed to the building of strong state, devoid of political bias. Let those values prevail forever. Maybe we'll return to those principles and stop telling everyone how to live their lives and what project their income will be forced to fund.
39 slave owning men... Who, if somehow appeared here in modern time, would be horrified at the equality given to slaves and women. Those men did good for the times, but times have changed... The world has evolved from horse-riden communications to emails that arrive in seconds across the world. The Consitution is behind the times and should be updated accordingly... So sorry, Mr. Franklin... But it's true
States' Rights
Just what I needed to start my day...a Pakistani retard working for the Communist News Netword telling me (a true American) that I need my Constitution re-written so that he and his liberal pals can force me to pay for more things that they're not willing to, like Obamacare. I've read the Constitution. I don't see anything that really can't be applied now a days. It's a document that liberals don't like b/c it guarantees true Americans the rights of freedom, most importantly that the federal government can't rule over us. Instead of re-writing the Constitution, I have a better idea...let's round up all the liberals, buy them all one way tickets to Europe, and wave goodbye to them forever. That sounds nice!
The same can be said for right wing lunatics...let all the "liberals " buy em tickets to sudan where they can live in a society purey controlled by those who have over the have nots!!!
Fareed: Go back to where you came from. We're doing just fine without you or your ignorant ramblings. CNN: Do you actually pay this guy for articles like this? ?
Great insight Fareed. I think the main problem with proposing amendments is deciding which to propose first and where to stop. There has to be enough popular public opinion to support changes in the law of the land. The first step would be online referendums, but allegations of electronic fraud and bias towards those who are not computer savvy would abound. I'm not saying this should be looked at but I am also saying that it would be tremendously difficult, especially given the current political climate.
The idea that there would be enough fundamental agreement among Americans to sustain major changes to the U.S. Constitution is so unrealistic that it does not bear serious consideration. This is a deeply divided country, and amendments to the Constitution - including amendments by substitution – require something close to consensus. It's not going to happen.
I think we should chunk our constitution and start over.Leave out the 2nd amendment completely,guns do kill people.
Also we need to do away with the state senate and congress.These bodies of state govt. do little and cost way too much.Have a elected group of 12 that votes on state issues and leave it at that.As for the US senate give each state 2 and the US congress give each state 1 and cut the rest.We also need to add to our states like Puerto Rico or any other Commonwealth or any territory that is part of the US should be able to become a state with the right to vote for president.
If you even tried to remove the 2nd Amendment, you would have a very large revolution on your hands. The 2nd amendment was made to ensure that citizens could fulfill the obligation to act against an overstepping and unjust government and replace it if need be. That was the whole point of declaring independence. You are a dolt. Go live in Europe or something where the people are at the mercy of their governments, for better or for worse.
1. Abolish the House of Representatives and grant to the people the ability to enact legislation through the indirect initiative, also known as the Initiative to the Legislature; establish a 66% minimum approval rate (by the general electorate) for all proposed constitutional amendments. Keep in mind that the House of Representatives, unlike the republican Senate, was set up to be the voice of the people, i.e., the democratic component of government; that this was done instead of an Athenian-style democratic chamber probably only reflects the practical impossibilities of the initiative in the 1780s. Keep the Senate on as a body whose sole purpose is to pass or propose alternatives to legislation submitted by indirect initaitives. To appease the small states without perpetuating the ridiculous inequalities of the the current Senate (WI's 6 million? How about Wyoming's 600,000?) establish a four or five tiered system: the ten least populous states get 1 senator each, the 10 most populous get 5 each, the second 10 least populous get 2 each, etc. This would preserve a strong bias in favor of the smallest states without totally disenfranchising the vast majority of US citizens.
2. Elect ALL offices through STV or IRV voting, as applicable.
3. Hold judicial elections in every relevant judicial district (i.e. Western Dist. of WA; the 8th Circuit; the Supreme Court) for NON-RENEWABLE 10 yr terms.
I shake my head at this pundit's lack of historical context regarding the constitution and his stupidity regarding the senate. I am also interested in why he didn't mention changing the archaic laws regarding anchor babies. I do think though that a law should be passed that only corporeal entities and not corporate entities have a right to contribute to elections. I also think K street should be leveled for a parking lot. SCOTUS needs to have stronger antilobbying and conflict laws put in place because scalia obviously is being paid by corporations in one way or another.
Three proposed amendments:
I. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Therefore I recommend instituting a restructuring of term limits on Congress and the Presidency.
1. House members should be elected for 4 year terms, and should be limited to 4 terms; consideration should be given towards setting a limit on the number of consecutive terms, perhaps 2.
2. Senators should have a 8-year term, limited to 3-4 terms, again, no more than 2 consecutive terms.
3. The Presidency should be 6 years, with no limit on the number of terms; however, they should be non-consecutive. A former President cannot be a Vice-Presidential candidate in the next election.
II. Regarding elections, there should be an amendment overturning Citizens United v. FEC. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, the ruling, which struck down parts of McCain-Feingold and allows corporations and other organizations to broadcast 'electioneering communications,' "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." Any and all money used in elections should be 100% transparent, and limited. This may also require revisiting Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), which granted corporations protections under the 14th amendment (i.e. corporate personhood).
III. The metric system should become the measurement standard of the land. The short term aggravation would lead to longer term benefits, wealth, and knowledge.
This guy's ideas are half baked at best. The Senate was deliberately set up with 2 per state in order to protect the small states. Hence the two chambers. Also, as a matter of fact, Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. It wasn't til the mid 20th century that Senators were elected by popular vote.
Presidential Candidates must spend most of their time in battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. They ignore the ones which are already a foregone conclusion, even if they could pick up extra votes by campaigning there. This makes the nation more polarized, and battleground states extract favors from the new administration. We can do better than this! The Electoral College is an anachronism.
Very weak article decrying the electoral college and the entire concept of a bicameral legislature. The author enshrines direct democracy as a paragon, but won't discuss its shortfalls.
Of course we could change the constitution, but the author here really just wants to do away with the senate and the electoral college. The author just used 'change the constitution' as a tagline to draw hits, fit in an interesting story about iceland (without disciussing its electoral system), and display his / her logical shortcomings.
This should be flagged as opinion, not news.
I think it is an interesting idea to revisit the constitution. Times have changed, and if we as a country do not change with it, we are doomed to fail...
This document was written back when the only communication available was hand-written letters by horseback. The whole system could be streamlined to take into consideration the technology available.
For instance (and this is only an idea, there are obviously flaws and some aspects arent exactly possible at this exact moment just because of security reasons): Why not eliminate Congress all together?? With internet, we could each cast a vote on a possible law and as a country the actual majority could decide. This would solve the problems of lobbying and campaign contributions, because these things hinder our rights as citizens.
All Fareed was getting at is, maybe it's time to discuss some better ideas. If nothing else add in simple things (that the founding father's wouldn't have even though of due to the non-exsistance) like banning lobbying and special interest campaign contributions as mentioned above. If we leave that up to Congress, it will never happen (thanks to their lobbying buddies and special interest groups that give them all sorts of goodies. Who would want to give that up?).
I also think that all political positions should have term limitations. Officials can become to complacent, and it seems the longer they are in the more corrupt they get. Not to mention, my views (being 26yrs old) are a little different than an 85 year old senator who has been in office for decades. My generation is going to be the more effected by the decisions the 85 year old who is completely disconnected from the modern era will be (isnt there a Senator still in office – or recently left office – that voted against de-segregation?? Someone like that shouldn't still be in office... so antiquated).
Also, I think our Constitution should be more stern on the seperation of Church and State. Gay Unions (not even on the Founding Father's radar...) should not be decided on because someone's religion views it as wrong. That is mixing your religious views with the state... NOT ALLOWED. Plane and simple. Homosexuals should have the same right as any other human being. It is a simple right... And Marriage is a Religious instituation, so let's stop calling it that people... Gay Unions takes the Religious aspect right out of it.
Or how about abortion (also not on the Founding Father's radar...)?? I am pro-choice, because I believe in my right as a women to choose. The main arguements against abortion rights are all religious based. Keep your religious beliefs out of my basic right as a women to make a decision about my body.
A document written 222 years ago might as well have been written in the stone ages. We have evolved leaps and bounds and to assume that this old document will be our letter of law for all times is a little naive. I do not think we should throw it out the window and I also think the Bill of Rights shouldnt be modified much (maybe add a few), but I think it is time to start revisiting it and changing it to be more appropriate for modern day life.
Think about it, these mean that w hold at such high revere were all slave owners. If somehow they were to wake up in present time, they would be horrified that the slaves are equals. Could you even imagine how they would feel about Affirmative Action?? They would be disappointed in how the country has evolved, and not in a good way. In an ignorant, pathetic way. (just saying...)
If I had to offer one amendment, it would be to not recongnize Islam as a religion, since it also claims to be a social, judicial and economic system as well as a "religion". There mere idea that a Muslim would propose we start making changes to the US Constitution should cause all of us great cause for concern.
Realistically, we can't even get the government to obey the US Constitution as written. BAFTE's mere existence virtually guts the meaning of the Second amendment and the current occupant of the White House picks and chooses which lawyers to listen to when it comes to the legality of our intervention in Libya. The problem is NOT with the US Constitution. The problem is with those who interpret it to their own, nefarious ends and a Supreme Court that cherry picks which cases it takes and makes up the law as it goes along. It is NOT a "living, breathing document". It says what it says.
That breaks the first amendment to the constitution.
Hey!!!! Here's a great chance to cram into the constitution all those rights that the founding fathers intended (but apparently forgot) to include. Finally we can throw out all those principles this country was founded upon. We can change the nation's name to the Revised States of America (RSA). Although I suggest keeping a version number so that immigrants can keep track of what nation we are this decade. We can apply the law to individuals based on whether they became citizens during RSA 1.5, or RSA 3.9!! Because after all, RSA 1.5 was what they signed up for and so why should we apply RSA 3.9 laws to that individual? We can tell all the veterans that served and died for the USA, "well, thanks for your participating in RSA Beta (formally known as USA). But now that we no longer hold these truths to be self evident, we'll send you a 5% discount when you buy into RSA."
Tell me, is ignorance really bliss??
He wasnt saying throw it out... This was meant to start an interesting discussion and to share view points on changes you think should be made if the opportunity were to ever present itself. Which it wont, because the slave-owning founding father's – who's only communication was a pen and paper taken by horse days later to the intended recipient – is the final say, mostly because of the ignorance in this country such as yours. Times have changed, technology has grown leaps and bounds; there are more efficient ways to govern a country. It would be interesting to see some big changes/additions (not a totally new document) to the 222 year old document.
"technology" can never provide answers to philosophical questions. Our current generation of technology worshipers is
a very shallow minded generation: if they can't find a button to push to fix whatever problem faces them at the moment they're totally stumped.
OK Kelly, for you I'll drop the sarcasm. I agree, there are better ways to govern, however technology has nothing to do with it. Whether I read the constitution on paper or via my phone or nook, the principles are the same. If you think that the writers of the constitution (of which there were over 200 revisions and changes made to it before coming up with the final verbiage) weren't in touch with the common man and woman's opinion, then you're sadly mistaken Many of them went through an evolutionary process that brought them to that point. And please know that I've learned this through years of study of history. I'm sorry that you mistook my sarcasm as ignorance.
Which brings me to my second point; Please advise Al Franken, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher via email, text, twitter, or FB (certainly not via pen and paper-lest it doth offend thee) and let them know that their sarcasm is ignorant. I'd appreciate you sharing that opinion with them.
OK, I've read a lot of the comments here, some highly intelligent and some not so intelligent. Neither of which is suprising in this great country. My only opinion is that the constitution is not the problem, It's the politicians we vote for to enforce it and then become corrupt and use it as a means for their own ends. If we could figure out a way to put checks and balances on them, then we would have a great system.
The reason this would never work in America is that the suggestions from Americans would only change things to help themselves. You would have 350M amendments all of which say "me". Americans do not think about the greater good. Read most of these comments. There is no sense of a greater good, it is just criticism and name calling.
Yes, a friend was complaining about NBC' recent editing of the Pledge of Allegiance to omit God. I found it interesting that most people were not upset at all about the part also omitted that says the country is 'indivisible'. The same people complaining about the edit have no problem buying made in China goods that help put other americans out of work.
A document written 222 years ago might as well have been written in the stone ages. We have evolved leaps and bounds and to assume that this old document will be our letter of law for all times is a little naive....
Oh while we are at it we might as well throw out the bible too...
Oh, you mean the book written in the dark ages as a means to lift spirits and inflict fear with tall tales?? Yep, precisely... Thanks for further proving my point.
It would be a good idea to throw the Bible out of our legislative halls of governance.
A separate article should be created in a new Constitution that clearly spells out all individual rights laid out the current Amendments but with parallel responsibilities are required for each right. In my mind this was a big oversight of the original framers of the Constitution. Some ideas:
Section 1: Qualifications for Citizenship/Responsibilities of Citizenship
a: People born in the U.S.A. are fully vested citizens of the United States regardless of race, creed, religious affiliation, sex or sexual orientation. b: It is the responsibility of all U.S. citizens regardless of civil or military status to serve, protect and defend the United States of America including possible loss of property, well being or life itself.
Section 2: Right to Free Speech, Religion etc. / Responsibility of Tolerance
a: All citizens have the right to free speech or to practice a faith of their own chosing
b: Citizens are prohibited agains discrimination or violence against those exercising such rights in good faith.
Section 3: Right to Bear Arms and Responsibility of Civil or Military Service
a: All citizens have the right to bear arms as part of a citizens militia called by the governor of the state in which they reside or the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military.
b: All citizens upon reaching the age of 18 must complete one year of military or civil service training that includes training on use of firearms for the defense of the nation for any all military attacks or to maintain the security within U.S. borders for any man-made or natural crises. Citizens having completed said training are required to serve in citizen militias at the discretion of the governer of the state in which they reside or the President of the United States in his role as Commander in Chief.
1. Make limited, individual campaign contributions the only legal variety. No corporate campaign contributions, no fund-raising groups. Retiring congressmen must wait ten years (they will receive a stipend) before returning to private sector employment.
2. Give congressional votes and their results unavoidable, daily media coverage. Mandate that a few minutes of every news broadcast, a ticker on every email portal, search engine and internet news outlet, and a header on the front page of every newspaper be dedicated to the most recent votes in both House and Senate. Give corresponding focus to the votes of congressmen/senators from the areas/states of the readers. Include short, concise and un-biased summaries of what each bill contains with focus to any riders and earmarks along with their sponsors.
3. The establishment of universal healthcare and a nationalization of the healthcare industry.
Sorry, #2 would backfire – people would (sadly) just stop looking where those things were prominent, and look where their interests were sated.
We are far past the point when geographical divisions are of any importance. Congressional representation should be determined by income. The top 1% of income earners in the United States should be represented by no more than 1% of a unicameral legislative body rather than by the 99% representation they have in the house and senate today.
1. Abolish the second amendment. State legislatures should regulate arms ownership and possession.
2. Abolish the electoral college and make the popular vote the means of electing the president and vice-president.
3. Abolish the "natural born" requirement for president and vice-president.
So you want only the most desely populated parts of our country running the entire country – and you want the rest of us left with no means to defend ourselves? There are a lot of countries in this world run this way – but that is key reson the US is a special place – so the beaurocrats in Moscow don't just send us off to Gulag. maybe you should think about relocating.
To answer Mr. Zakaria's original question,
1. The First Amendment (It's first for a reason). Clarify and expand the separation of Church and State (It's there to protect the STATE – Church has never been in danger from this government.)
2. A Corporation is not a Person; it is a collection of persons, and has no rights unto itself. Person's rights shall supersede any rights accorded a Corporation.
3. Congress shall make no law to dictate to another person what they can or cannot do to their own body, or any part of their own body.
A lot of crazy ideas up above, and most to limit or remove rights from people. Amazing. Let's keep the Constitution we have, and let's try walking in the footsteps of others more often – more empathy, less antipathy.
I'm sorry, but, this article is full of total bullshit. The Constitution is a work of artful genius. Maybe, Mr. Fareed Zakaria would like a one way ticket to Soviet Russia 60 years ago.
I don't think you get it. This article was specifically written to start a debate and spark thought. There is absolutely no criticism of the document.
"No criticism"? He clearly said that parts of the current Constitution are out-dated and "un-democratic" and that we should consider updating/revising them. If that's not criticism, what is?
I completely agree with Mr. Zakaria that the structure of the senate is undemocratic. This is largely due to the fact that we are a republic and NOT a democracy (If you don't believe me say the pledge of allegiance or take the time to look it up). Before we all decide to change the constitution, it might be helpful to look at the definition of a republic and to actually read the constitution. That way you know how your government is designed to work and you aren't relying on how your fifth grade social studies teacher (or Mr. Zakaria) told you s/he thinks the government is supposed to work.
Citizens feel powerless and disconnected from their government.
The government continues to act without the will of the people.
Grotesque compromises are made in order to get any legistation completed.
Is your "vote" counted or considered?
Is this the way you want it?
Currently you have four federal representives, your Congressman, two Senators and a President. But their objective is to get elected, and not necessarily to vote the way you would prefer.
But citizens can take charge of their government.
A true democracy is feasible.
A new process is outlined below, and how to get it.
The process requires a radical change, and you will have a lot of questions! Some are answered if you read the FAQ below, after reading this outline.
The key idea is:
Each citizen has a direct vote on all proposed laws via his/her own lobbyist/proxy/Special Representive (SR).
1. The SR has your voting authority (a legal document with signatures) to vote Yea, Nay or Abstain on proposed laws.
2. The SR uses your directives/conditions to vote on proposed law.
3. The SR may be the same person or a different person for each proposed law.
4. The SR would cast a number of votes equal to the number of voters the SR represented (some would be yea, some nay, some abstain)
5. The SR has US citizenship (can be prosecuted for malfeasance) but is not an elected official.
6. The SR is hired and/or fired by you (at any time), and based on ability (see below).
7. The SR is paid by you for each vote, but you are reimbursed with a government tax credit or refund.
8. The SR is highly informed on the issues surrounding the proposed law, and is articulate, persuasive, and a savvy negotiator (your lobbyist).
9. The SR has your directives/conditions regarding the law, but must interpret the acutal wording in the proposed law and decide whether your directives mean a Yea or a Nay. (You don’t need to be involved in the details).
10. The SR knows when to compromise in order to get a proposed solution. But you can stipulate conditions for the compromise ahead of time. Or, you can be on call to decide choices as they come up.
11. The SR will be in contact with you though a secure link, just as you do with your online bank account or stock market account (similar to how you vote on company business issues on stocks).
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions:
Understanding all issues and voting is a full time job. How do I function?
1. You could select a SR who has your general viewpoint, i.e., a general SR for all issues (similar to a medical doctor as a general practitioner).
2. In specific areas you could form an opinion and select another SR who covers a specific area (similar to a medical specialist, e.g. a surgeon)
3. Or you could elect not to vote, (see Citizenship Metrics Blog)
Having an opinion is hard work and time consuming. How do I become sufficiently informed?
1. Read the summary positions of leading SRs (the pros and cons of a bill)
2. Or the read the full text of the bill.
3. Select the SR that suits you best, and add your conditions for yea or nay.
What if the bill is too big?
1. One of the first things to accomplish is dividing huge bills into separate bills, so that nasty compromises are not required.
2. Vote no an any large bill
What happens to Congress?
1. They become SRs
Do we still elect a President?
1. Yes, he executes the laws, but does not make them
2. He operates with the budget that is voted upon by you
3. He is evaluated as an executive, not as an evangelist (liar).
4. There will be plenty of evangelists
Why is there an Abstain vote?
1. An intention to abstain during negotiations encourages changes in the bill. Typically, straw votes are tallied continuously as the bill is ammended. Abstains can be the swing votes if their conditions are met.
Where, When and How is the vote?
1. The vote is electronic and on a predefined schedule.
2. Straw votes are typically used to assess whether there will be a true vote.
3. There is time between votes for amendments.
4. Your encrypted vote is from any secure internet device.
Is bribery of voters possible?
1. Yes, as it is now with voting by mail. (A briber could watch you vote and/or mail your ballot.)
2. Bribery would carry penalties.
3. Your vote would be online with a serial number, known only by you and secured by encryption.
4. A voter could change his vote if the briber were not present. (not the case with US mail type voting)
Will voters vote themselves money/privileges?
1. The majority probably will not vote for excessive funding, or property grabs, outrageous proposals, etc.
2. The Constitution still rules, and laws are enforced through “due process”.
3. The courts will intervene when suits are brought.
4. Tax reform or big change is possible.
How and why will Congress approve this?
1. A voter referendum is probably required
2. Or an election of supporting representatives (a "Reform Party").
3. Probably takes several election cycles.
4. See below on starting at the local level.
Violates the constitution?
1. Not if written and enacted under the rules.
Corruption possible?
1. Encryption is pretty standard now (e.g. banking, broker accounts).
2. Your name would be on a public register of voters (as your name is now)
3. Your vote would by identifiable only by you via encryption.
4. Your vote would have a serial number, known only by you.
5. You could see your vote and change it. The total would change to verify it.
6. Hacker defense would be needed. (like banks have)
7. If the SR intentionally voted not in accord with your directives (fraud), your diligence would be needed.
8. SR fraud would be transparent to you and reportable to .
9. Fraud would be punishable. The SR is a US citizen and eligible for prosecution by a District Attorney.
10 Voters could switch SRs, who compete for voters and are paid by voters.
11. SRs make their living off of success as a SR, so would avoid fraudulent behavior.
12. Coalitions are minimized (again, avoiding nasty compromises, very important!)
Why do I need an SR if I specifty the conditions for a vote?
1. Because the wording on the bill will not be a perfect match with your conditions. Therefore, you would always vote no. Your objective is have negotiations that get the words close to what you want. This is the main job of the SR, to inerpret your words and decide if your words and the bills words are close enough. The SR then has some negotialting power depending on the wording. So your SR can negotiate on the words to get the final bill close to your wishes. Your SR should be “on your side” of the issue.
How can this help get fiscal order?
1. Your SR directive would generally be to vote NO on all earmarks or "riders" (aka special interests amendments). Recommended. Note that “coalitions” (aka “parties”) are not needed to get legislation completed. Independents would have a real vote.
2. Your SR could generally vote for 90% of last year’s appropriation to Government Departments/Agencies. This reduces the size of government in a minimally traumatic way. Recommended.
Where does it start?
1. At local level
2. On the internet
What is the process at the Local Level?
1. Local is a likely place to start, and would show feasibility.
2. Candidates run for election as a single issue candidate: Election Reform
3. Candidates pledge to support legislation only with the voters' vote
4. Voters join a web site that directs the elected official’s vote
5. Elected official is now a SR and votes only the proxy votes that he has.
6. Voters are registered publically by US Mail address, signature, email account, etc.
7. Web login is protected by password.
8. SRs operate as described above
How does it start on the internet?
1. Voting websites exist and could form the basis for the needed software.
2. People would sign up and cast a mock vote on current legislation.
3. Alternative bills could be introduced and mock voted upon.
4. When web site had enough “mock voters”, it would draw advertising and be self sustaining.
5. When the web site had enough voters it would become a force in politics.
6. This is actually a business model that could be a good “start up” company.
7. Or, just email this to Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook
Should there be “voter qualifications for voting on an issue”, not just “one person, one vote”?
1. The founding fathers debated this one, and there were various criteria (gender, slavery, etc.)
2. Qualifications would make better citizens
3. There could be simple criteria, such as, a multiple choice test on simple facts regarding the bill.
What if we don’t do this?
1. Government representatives want to stay in power, and do so by raising money for re-election. Substantial funds come from lobbyists, and are used in TV advertising.
2. This effective process is devisive, distractive from real issues, dihonest and filled with inuendo and slander.
3. The problem will be more severe now that the Supreme Court has removed political funding limits on Corporations and Unions.
4. The problem is systemic, increasing, causing harm and will not change without radical change to the governing process.
Would you like to vote directly on political issues? Vote now
see th tgmanifesto on blogger
A true Democracy will not work in the United States so long as the states remain allotted with unequal populations and competing interest. You try for a true democracy and the result will be dis-assembly of the Union, in short. Your ideas, although eloquent, will not work and will never come to fruition via ratification.
The Simple Truth says the “ideas ... will never come to fruition via ratification”
Ratification for a change comes down to a few simple voter questions:
1. Do you want to vote or don’t you?
2. Consider the options: Stay mired in the system we have or change to something like a true democracy?
3. In Wyoming with 600,000 people the questionn is: What is having a disproportionate advantage in the number of Senators giving you? … Answer: Nothing
The Simple Truth says “A true democracy will result in dis-assembly of the Union.”
Why would the people disassemble the Union? After all, the central ideas of a rule of law, a common defense, a Bill of Rights, a separtaion of powers, and a Constitution are generally good and win the people’s approval (I assume).
Here's a proposed amendment:
"In any fiscal year in which the Federal budget is not balanced, no elected member of the US Government may seek election or appointment to any Federal office."
So much ado about a document that the Federal Government ignores routinely anyway. In reality The US Constitution is an illusion.
Thomas Jefferson thought that each generation should redo the constitution based on their specific time period. This is not a new idea, but we Americans don't realize that adaptation and change is needed for survival.
Please provide your evidence.. Also define generation in this context and btw... Amendments do reflect the time... Try reading them. Slavery.... Prohibition (inception and dissolution)... Women voting... hmmm.. ya, they're all right there, representing the thought at the time.
Such a shame... Imagine how things would be if we had listened?? The corruption would be far less, that's for sure...
Sounds great to take a fresh modern look at the Constitution, however our current government is so corrupt and heavily controlled by big business that it will never happen. That is until we are living in Rollerball times, then the corporate overlords will replace it with articles of incorporation and the individual will have no say whatsoever.
I like the idea of no corporate government bribes (lobbying). Making bribing (lobbying) a gov't official a crime, putting term limits on ALL elected gov't offices, and giving we the people the power to submit bills for passage into law would make this country much more democratic, but the politicians will never give their power over the people back unless they are forced. As Jefferson said, a little revolution now and then is a good thing.
If you're arguing on the internet, you're already wrong.
So true...
If you're not arguing somewhere, you're silent and have chosen irrelevancy.
When you make the internet your sole forum for "argument" or debate you make yourself and the internet "irrelevant".
Iceland is a tiny, ethnically homogenous nation of less than half a million people. Studies on political culture have shown that in such circumstances it is relatively easy to make what would be sweeping changes any place else. America is a nation of 300 million that is deeply divided along racial, socio-economic, and ideological lines. This would make what Zakaria is suggesting difficult enough, but what is most significant is that the Constitution is said to be the ONLY thing holding all of us together. This is not true of Iceland or most other countries which openly acknowledge that their nation is also based on a shared history, culture, and language. Comparing Iceland to the U.S. is beyond apples and oranges, it's moronic. And Zakaria is normally such an intelligent writer, he really should know better.
no we do not need a new constitution we need to adhere to the one we have; what good does changing something do; do you think that changing it will make everything mysteriously get better noooooo; the libatards would love to change it and let me guess the 1st 2nd ect ect would be omitted ; and i say the day they remove the 2nd will be the day civil war breaks out and for good reason; see whats happening in the middle east; its because they dont have that right; no no no no no never trust a government to do the right thing as we can see they will kill you with no hesitation; i;m convinced of that fact jack
To ask the population of a nation so badly educated in history and in Civics to propose changes to our constitution is asking
for trouble. And to ask that same population which is so badly polarized along political party lines and regional and racial
biases (bigotry?) is an invitation to disaster. Leave our Constitution alone.
Hey, for a new Constitution let's just WELCH on the debt...
Seriously, we can KEEP Social Security so even if we fail to become "Dot com millionaires" we won't starve as old men. Social Security wouldn't be a problem till people lived to 144 years old. It's just that one Administration after another has raided it, starting with Hoover for highways. Just declare the fund to be there, the "Funny Money" the rich elite think they are owed disappear!!!
We already have a process for amending the constitution, and changing it to reflect the times...It is called an Amendment. Not being an Icelandic constitutional scholar, I can't comment on whether or not they had that ability in their constitution, which might be why they are starting from scratch which seems like a really drastic approach. However, one amendment I would like to propose is eliminating the sale of our representatives' votes through corporate and PAC donations.
But the process of amending the constitution is deliberately onorous such that we don't pick the political issue of the month and create a constitutional mandate about it. Soliciting ideas via modern media makes great sense. But writing the constitution based on the internet ramblings of the collective is a firghtenting prospect (purely based on the sampling I come across just on the CNN site). I sincerely hope the 320,000 citizens of Iceland have the good sense to ignore some of the more inane postings.
Hey Fareed,
Go F*CK yourself. This is OUR country. If you don't like it, then go back to your homeland... Oh wait, that's right you don't want to because America kicks A**! We have a process for amending that is INTENTIONALLY DIFFICULT TO DO in case LIBERAL COMMUNIST TYRANTS ever take over the government. It is this way so that there is time to DEBATE and not just RULE BY DECREE because some immigrant thinks he is better than the people who he CHOSE to be a part of.
My Constitutional amendment proposal is a combination of two concepts: term limits and a balanced budget amendment.
"No member of Congress shall be eligible for re-election at any time in which there is a federal budget deficit."
What catches me about this selection is that the piece does not thoroughly acknowledge the premise of the Constitution as a living document created to change along with time. When it is suggested that the Senate is outdated because it supplies equal votes for Montana compared to Texas, you must remember that the ideal presented in the Constitution is to give equal footing to the minority in the chamber. (This is the principle of William Patterson's New Jersey Plan at the convention to ensure states like NY, VA, and Mass could not dominate the federal governments direction) Montana in the foreseeable future will not have the same population as Texas, yet if Texas has its way, Montana could go down with the ship if Texas makes a bad call in a unicameral population based legislature. For this reason, the founding fathers brilliantly created the legislature based on population (The House of Representatives set on the Virginia plan) as the lower house in the legislative branch. It still takes into account population, but does not allow it to supersede its jurisdiction over the entire nation. California and Texas would dominate the system and others would be subject to their whims. Maybe if we did choose to re vamp the Constitution with a new document, some protections will not be guaranteed because a majority can all of a sudden rewrite the rule book. We cannot assume that common sense will win the day. The founding fathers with all their flaws (Jefferson) understood this. Freedom of Religion might as well be out, along with Right to Bear Arms or Freedom of Speech. I apologize to anyone offended, but this seems as silly as the need to change the law to elect the President because people wanted to have Arnold Schwarzenegger run at one point. You cannot have a flash in the pants moment decide how the nation should reinvent itself because things don't seem to be looking okay today. The long term must always be taken into account, which is what the founding fathers decided years ago and still is seen as an appropriate way to ensure everyone is represented regardless of whether it is enforced {which is an entirely different matter}
1. NO censorship. Not evenpornography, of ANY kind, for any reason, even for kids (I should not suffer because you have kids)
2. Clearly defined seperation of church and state to keep christian cultists from dicating policy
3. Arrest federal politicians when they propose/enforce un-Constitutional laws
"1. NO censorship. Not evenpornography, of ANY kind, for any reason, even for kids (I should not suffer because you have kids)
2. Clearly defined seperation of church and state to keep christian cultists from dicating policy
3. Arrest federal politicians when they propose/enforce un-Constitutional laws"
1. No censorship = anarchy, where you can say and do anything you want without regard to how it would affect someone else's beliefs, understanding, or development. This is the opposite of a healthy society.
2. Your understanding of "separation of church and state" is appalling, yet typical. This is NOT part of the Constitution, it is a phrase taken from one of Jefferson's private letters. The Constitution actually forbids the state from establishing an official STATE religion. It does not forbid government officials from being religious, recognizing or participating in religious observances, or even from creating laws that protect, respect, or even encourage certain religious practices or ideals. The framers of the Constitution did not want a situation as in England, where the head of the state (the king) was also the head of the only recognized religion in the country (the Anglican church), i.e. practicing any other religion (including the lack of a religion, if pressed!) was punishable by secular law.
3. Politicians do not ENFORCE law, they CREATE law. They are the legislative branch. The court system is the branch that interprets the laws that the legislative branch create. The executive branch is the one that enforces the laws.
Also, you seriously want to arrest a politician for even proposing something that is unconstitutional? You want us to have Thought Police now? Did you even consider that a proposed amendment to the constitution is by definition unconstitutional since it is not part of the constitution?
Please put more thought into your posts, or don't post at all.
You think? We have been through every singe possible combination of a democratic/republican president with a democratic/ republican house and a democratic/republican senate and we fail to solve the problems that face our nation: failing schools, an outdated immigration policy, an energy policy that makes us more dependent on foreign oil, over regulations on small businesses, corrupt regulators for large corporations, the increasing trade deficit, the debt bomb that is the retiring baby boomers and the entitlements promised to them, peoples reliance on welfare, the disappearing middle class, the fact that we are always at war, the continuing success of wall street at the expense of main street. The american republic has failed to find a solution to these problems in its current form, it must be changed.
that, the problem the constitution is being side stepped by the special interest in Washington.
when the founders lived if "you were asked to serve in office, then voted on" if you wanted to run for office it was understood you had the wrong motive for being in office. now we will spend over 1 billion on the 2012 election, for what more special interest!!!
we have to go back to the basics and restore America and that starts with us restoring ourselfs. Honor, Truth, Moral Character and Love for what is Good not the opposite where we are now!!!
first in order to cast a vote individuals must 1st be a tax paying citizen of the US and/or a home/property owner.
also let's try living underneath the current Constitution and within our means!!!!
The biggest problem with the Constitution today is that the Federal Government ignores when it is inconvenient to their goals. As long as that is true, no constitution can limit the power of the government.
Yeah. We should do away with those pesky gun law things, and make hate speech a crime too.
I think this author's views are warped, writing obvious bias against the current system without any 'pro' arguments for retaining the system as-is; not exactly a balanced "pro" vs "con" argument. Calling the Senate "undemocratic" certainly shows a lack of understanding how the system was designed to work. Or even saying that the Constitution was "revised" 27 times; it was amended, not "revised"–there is a difference.
Personally, as an educated citizen that makes enough money to maintain a "middle class" land-owning status, it scares me what would happen if the government was left to be formulated by "popular demand" of people that largely have not made the choices in their lives to put themselves into a bracket that actually pays taxes or owns land. It was initially a requirement to be a land owner before a citizen could vote as an indicator of understanding the responsibilities unique to earning and owning real assets. With the direction this country has taken the last few decades, it should return that way.
I'm sad to say none of this makes any difference since it is the lobbyist and special interest groups that get their way, not the people of the individual states.
All wrong. First of all, there is no evidence any provision of the Constitution is outdated or 'Undemocratic' as it was put. Secondly, there are no better ideas presented. Thirdly, our government is far more corrupt than in 1787 and any changes to the Constitution would inevitably carry far more baggage than any potential improvements could counter. Finally, 'one man one vote' was never a cornerstone of democracy, nor would it work. Under such a system, the denseley populated urban areas would run the country and the voice of the rest of the country would go unheard (which it already is, to a large extent, even under the current 'unfair' system). And yes, many people dislike the electoral college, but none of them seem to have any better ideas – at least not any ideas that would bring a greater sense of fairness to the table. Completely intellectually bankrupt article that demonstrates a lack of understanding of our nation, then and now.
The United States is fine, and eventually global trade will rebalanced itself where we are once again competitive. We are declining from an unprecedented economic domination of the global stage. If we cannot tolerate this, then we should explore protectionism, but that also comes at great cost. Either way, the politicians are actually so weak in comparison to the forces at work that any legislative stop-gap they attempt to use to countermeasure the decline will likely be circumvented unless they utilize full protectionist practices. America is like a bucket, we were once full of wealth. That wealth, through our consumerism and lack of protections, is now balancing out with the rest of the world as we have effectively removed the walls upon our bucket that kept the wealth inside. All citizens of the world will prosper in therms of their quality of life from this, but it will be at the cost of the average American citizen. The problem is, not every nation in the world will participate voluntarily in this game and the liberal economic policy will likely result in punishment for our benevolence.
We're okay. Our economy is okay. The real question is more about our trade practices and policies.
You missed the very answer in your own argument. You point out that the constitution has been amended over the years. That's how problems get fixed, not re-writing the whole deal. You don't tear apart your house to fix a leaky faucet. Re-writing the Constitution that has been perhaps the greatest framework for democracy in history invites more troubles then it could ever solve.
I agree with your point on the electoral college, and in this day and age there is no reason why we shouldn't just use popular vote, which is the truest democracy.
I don't agree with your point on the Senate. You want representation based on population? You already have it in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, each state gets equal representation so no state (or it's citizens) aren't stuck without a political voice due to lower population, which is the way the Senate is intended to work. The Senate is about legislative parity among the states, and isn't equality the heart and soul of the document we're discussing?
It's not a problem with the Constitution, but your lack of understanding of it's purpose.
Fareed, here is the answer:
http://streitcouncil.org/uploads/PDF/F&U%20-%20Fall%202010%20Henry.pdf
Cheers,
Dick Henry
American Nationalism and National Identity/Pride > Desire to unify into any other sovereign body.
While this is an instructive and formal type of update, it contains the basic flaw in most all current governments: the people cede their power to elected officials who then run amuck by having inordinate power. Please remember that power corrupts.
I do like the idea of rewriting things at some interval. Probably be a good idea to condense and clarify the Constitution and modernize some aspects of it.
That said, however, the Constitution is not nearly the "bloatware" that the general government and legal framework of the country is. Many laws are very old and pointless these days. Others are overly broad. There are too many loopholes with regards to taxes, allowing people and corporations with money to find and exploit them. This is the part of the country that needs to be condensed and rewritten.
I really do like the idea of eliminating the influence of money on our representation. Our legislators are always hunting for campaign money for their next term. Give everyone the same amount of campaign money to put them on an equal footing so their ideas not their campaign coffers get them elected.
After reading some of the responses I have to question whether some lack the intelligence or are just completely ignorant with the subject altogether. Seriously, change the Senate? The Senate is the only thing that gives States the equal representation among larger and Smaller States. I think people often forget what USA means. We are United yes, but we are also States. We are 50 individual States with Unique and wonderful people. Do you people really want to make to entire Country all the same plain jane vanilla? I'm from Louisiana and if anyone has visited my State you would know that we are unlike anywhere else in the US. And that is why I love it! There is nothing wrong with the Constitution! I'm tired of hearing people say we live in a democracy! We do not! We live in a Republic! Go back to Civics class and actually pay attention this time Zakaria!
The Constitution does not need revamping. All of those little bitty amendments that special interests have put on the end of it need to be deleted. Fareed quit being an ignoramous. We know you are a slave to Obama. It's a pity you can't see the forest for the trees.
Hell yeah. Slap it up on Wikipedia and let's see what happens.
you'd get the most massive piece of misinformed drivel that the world has ever seen...
I do not think it could ever be changed because it would need to be free of religious bigotry (pro and con), it would have to be gender neutral and written where all financial groups are equal...regardless of income or status ! And you know they would be wanting to take away the legally owned weapons of law abiding Americans ! My idea is not to re-do the constitution but to get back to enforceing it as its written.......and lets not keep trying to bend the words to fit desires of a few !
top 3 conlstitutional amendments required–if we are to reclaim a meaningful majority-rule representative democracy.
1.abolish private funding of public elections. this would minimize corporate influence and encourage ordinary people with good ideas to run for Congress.
2. abolish filibuster (for both houses) and any house or senate rule that requires more than a majority vote to enable proposed legislation to reach the floor for a vote or pass proposed legislation.
3. abolish presidential veto. is one person really smarter than 269? (269 would be the minimum # required to pass legislation in both houses if all members were present and voting yes or no.)
Three things that I would change in the constitution:
1. Abolish the Electoral College and have a simple, popular vote settle things. If we really are the true democracy we like to think we are, then we should settle all of our elections based on the number of votes. We do it in every other election, why should the President be different? This would also ensure a President or candidate would not be able to take any states for granted or ignore any states, and would have to address the issues in the red/blue states more equally.
2. Allow non-US born citizens to run for President. I would say anyone who has been a citizen for at least 25 years should be able to run for President.
3. Term limits for every elected official in federal government, as well as all governors. Two terms for President, three terms for Senators (who would have their terms reduced to four years), and five terms for Congressmen/women. Governors should be limited to four terms as well.
I think big business and their money grubbing employees (our politicians) have done enough to screw up the USA! They have passed enough laws to destroy our great nation! Now you want to give them an "in" to change the last thing the people have to protect themselves. Change our Constitution? I think CNN's Fareed Zakaria IS NUTS ! Once that door is open our right to free speech and the right to bear arms along with a host of others will be changed forever. WE WILL NO LONGER BE A FREE COUNTRY!
E Connelly
The Constitution does not need revamping. All of those little bitty amendments that special interests have put on the end of it need to be deleted. Fareed quit being an ignoramous. We know you are a slave to Obama. It's a pity you can't see the forest for the trees.
June 20, 2011 at 5:33 pm>>>>>>>>the Republicans who fought for and gave corporations the same rights as people are actually the ones chuckling at fareeds idea it would help them complete the decimation of this nation....imagine if the Republicans and corporations were allowed to rewrite the constitution...yikes!!!
How about following the constitution for a change? That would result in smaller govt and less opportunity for special interests and crony capitalism. We have our problems today because govt is too big and does too much (badly of course).
We need to replace the senators with governors. This will save some money and transfer the power to the states. These two group of people are actually representing the same states.
Your article reflects a basic lack of understanding of American history and American government. We have a FEDERAL system in that the states are sovereign and have independent powers. At the time the constitution was written, the colonies were disparate having diverse traditions, interests and economies. The constitution was written to accommodate this situation. If the structure of electoral college and the Senate were altered, it would change the basic structure of our country. I would think that a great deal of thought and public debate would have to occur before that is done.
In practical terms, this nation ceased to be a Federation the moment that Lincoln went to war to prevent the Confederate states from seceding. At that point, this became a nation composed of states rather than states joined to form a union.
Just touching on your argument regarding the Senate. It's by design that California has just as many Senators as the state of Wisconsin. Look up the Connecticut Compromise and tally up the number or California Representatives in the House compared to that of Wisconsin, then get back to me.
It is most assuredly clear that a change in the US constitution is needed. First and foremost the senate should be made to look like the Bundesrat in Germany. What we have now is a system in which there are two levels of the peoples voice which has no correlation with an individual states interest. in turn the senate is only chamber that matters in public policy because a 60 vote majority is needed. Each state should send there local government and transfers of power in a state should be reflected in the senate immediately. States should get votes in proportion to their population. and representatives should vote en block.
However the most important change to the constitution should be the adoption of proportional representation on the local as well as in the the house of representatives. The system we have now creates a political duopoly. in principal we as a society don't support a lack of competition in the market why should we support a lack of competition in politics. 70 percent of the US population is in favor of a third party. however this is impossible as we have single member districts, and a first past the post system which only requires a plurality of votes. Secondly one of the main principals of democracy is that people select there representatives, this is not the case with reapportionment every ten years politicians actively choose their voters. This act is impossible with proportional representation as a party gets as many seats as it earns. PR also gets rid of the need for strategic voting, why do you think turnout is so low in the US we hate both parties, the approval rating of congress is only 17 percent. If the parties had to earn 10 percent of the vote to get elected to the house as in other countries neither would be in congress today. The parties have failed they should be able to go out of business and ext the the legislature, like the free democrats are likely to in Germany with only 4% support.
A third and necessary change is a prime minister's/ president's questions as they have in the United Kingdom. This provides transparency and is actually intellectually engaging as ones leader needs to know the facts and explain the governments position. Unlike the senate and house hearings which are exceedingly boring. It's good to know that ones leader is humbled and can take hits and throw them right back at their critics. What we have now is a system in which the president is put on a pedestal and held above the people when he is doing a job for the people.
I'd suggest three Constitutional changes:
First, to make it more of the small deliberative body the founders envisioned, I'd give each state ONE senator rather than two. That would make the Senate the small interactive body envisioned, and require more personal responsibility. I'd also be temprted to repeal the amendment that provided for direct election of senators, but that seems less important.
Second, I'd develop standard nationwide rules for elections of Federal offices (President, Vice President, Senator, and Representative) allowing EVERYONE over the age of eighteen to vote, and eliminate state restrictions on access of 'third parties' to the ballot. I don't get as excited by the electoral college in Presidential elections – with the exception that there is no constitutional restriction on how individual electors actually cast their ballot.
Finally, I'd give the President a 'line item veto.' I wouldn't go as far as some states have in allowing governors to amend bills, but a line item veto, especially on spending bills, would seem to promise more control over the budget.
There are many other tings that could help, but I believe these three would give us the ability to work the others out for ourselves.
There's legal ways to amend the constituion, I'd suggest repealing the 10th amendment since unfortunately no one pays attention to it. otherwise, it's over my dead body.
There are some things I would like to see changed in the Constitution. Making clear that the Preamble is the reason for the thing, and defining what our heritage as a nation is, so we know how to move forward.
On the other hand, and this is a big other hand, none of our current leaders, the republicans in particular, and the Tea Party in most particular show the same wisdom and insight that our founding fathers took for granted. If Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh wrote the new Constitution, we can only fear and dread what the result would look like.
The democrats are not much better. A constitutional convention now is a disaster waiting to happen. No, no, a thousand times no. A fresh look at our constitution yes, by these bums, not in your life.
I agree with you. I read about what unchecked power wrought back in the first half of the 20th Century. The progressive era, The New Deal. I know our Country is on pins and needles but the Constitution keeps BOTH parties from absolute power. Absolute power corrupts Absolute! Keep the checks and balances in place. No enabling act!
I don't think so. The constitution was written by people of uncommon intelligence. I don't see anything but idiots out there now. The constitution as it now exists is our protection from the tyranny of the masses. Don't mess with it.
28th amendment to the Constitution: Facebook and Twitter decide the electoral college. Case closed!
Never will happen. – We can't agree on anything... I'm sure someone reading this doesn't agree with me! _ ha!
The problem isn't that there's something wrong with our Constitution, it's that there's something wrong with everything else.
We need to go back to square one, and look at every minute detail of our government with a fresh eye. Keep the Declaration and Constitution and throw out everything else. We need to find EDUCATED, intelligent, honest representatives from (almost) all walks of life – particularly experts in sociology, economics, business (real ones, not the crooks that run these massive multinational behemoths), health care, military, law enforcement, and education – while making sure any lawyer, politician, or corporate big business person stays FAR away from the discussion.
Do you know where we are as a country!? We are not Iceland and our Constitution is doing fine. Aren't you guy suppose to inform and not bagger the public with the way u want things. Just stop.
One major change that should be made to the Constitution is going to a Single Transfer Vote like they have in Ireland. This system is the most sophisticated way of voting that better represents a constituent's interests. Every district would be represented by three seats. When people go to the polls, they would list out, in order, each candidate in order of favoritism. For instance, if I liked the Green Party candidate more than the Democratic candidate, I'd put Green Party as number 1 and Democrat as number 2. If the Green Party candidate fails to gain 30% of the vote (or one seat), then my vote would next go to the Democrat.
This process does take longer to count votes, but it leads to a more representative Congress that way and it would allow third parties to finally be able to gain seats.
Finally, I would suggest adding a human rights section to the Bill of Rights. One that would ensure rights against all sorts of discrimination, hate crimes and environmental injustices.
Zakaria, keep shaking the beehive... The fact that so many are insulting you is the simplest proof that they fear what you say...So keep it up..You have the luck to own a piece of the public opinion debate, keep it going. And, from an atheist :" Godspeed".
Great Idea and should have been done a long time ago. However, good luck. People hate change.
I'd say out government system is out of date in many respects, and could use some revisions. The constitution was built to be redesigned! We shouldn't have a system where it's so easy to reach complete gridlock, where politicians are so afraid of re-election they can't work with each other to get real things done. We have too many elections, and Presidents should only get one 6 year term, this two term thing is silly because the whole first term is perpetual campaign mode to get re-elected, the second term is lame duck time.
Yea, but we are all collectively dumber than a sack of doorknobs.
If we gave our current government the chance to rewrite the constitution, they would od nothing but strip away the few protections the people rely on to protect them against that same government.
Our constitution was written for the people, and should only be adapted to give the people more controls, more rights, and more protections.
I wouldn't trust the writings either. They would make it look pretty, then use legalese to thwart it.
If we allowed people to decide a new constitution today, what we'd wind up with is a mishmash of ideas such as a ban on flag burning, or a debt ceiling that could never be raised. I don't trust the people of America to focus on the long term and the big picture, because I've seen no evidence in my lifetime that most Americans even understand what happened six months ago.
A couple of amendments I can think of:
1) Make failing to deliver on any election promises result in ineligibility to stand for any political office ever again.
2) Place limits on Federal borrowing so that one generation could not effectively enslave the next to make them pay off the debts of prior generation.
My proposed amendment to the Constitution combines two concepts: term limits and a balanced budget amendment.
"No member of Congress shall be eligible for re-election at any time in which there is a federal budget deficit."
Yeah I'm sure Zacharia (and Obama) would LOVE for us to rewrite the Constitution. If you don't like It, GET OUT!
In a perfect world now would be a good time to revisit and rewrite the Constitution. The country and the world have changed so drastically that some issues simply cannot be inferred from the Constitution. We need to address the issues of privacy. We need to strongly curtail the power of the judicial system. We need to limit the ability of political parties to hijack the legislative process.
Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. With the corrupt and incompetent people we have in place now make even amending the Constitution a mistake let alone rewriting it.
The author is obviously a commie. If you hate America, please leave.
I can't believe this questions has come up, but then again seeing it is CNN, I can understand. This is one of the nerviest things CNN has put on its website. Now we are being compared to Iceland? To people who don't even have last names because it is so small? Give me a break. The U.S. Constitution does not need to be rewritten, but it certainly needs to be enforced as is, and for the States, not for Wash. DC to make believe it was written for the Federal Government, but for the United States.
Hi Susan,
Thomas Jefferson would disagree... he believed we should have periodic revolutions (every 20 years or so). He believed, correctly so, that we should not be bound by what a long dead generation wanted... anymore than the colonists should be bound to the wishes of another country.
William
I would do the following three amendments:
1. PayGo: Each piece of legislation must include in the same legislation how it will be paid for (with spending cut offsets from other parts of the budget, or revenue increases). In the event of emergency (declared by a minimum of 2/3 of each chamber of Congress), PayGo can be suspended for a 12 month period. This State of Emergency can be renewed with an ongoing super majority of 2/3 vote.
2. Proportional Representation: Following the British example, we would seek to end the duopoly on power... and give a voice for libertarians, populists, socialists, etc that do not have a real political party to represent their views.
3. Parliamentary System: A parliament (the House) would hold legislative power, and would elect from their membership a Prime Minister. We end the inability to know who is responsible for bad policy... when a party is in power, and things do not work, we would KNOW who to fire. This would end the Executive and Legislative able to just blame each other, and both get re-elected.
These three amendments provide: Economics being added to the budget (they have to choose how to use scarce resources rather than just always use the national credit card and not consider cost), a voice for everyone (so we do not have to just pick between the least of evils... and with more choices, we can actually have a reason to vote), and accountability (we will know who made the policy, and therefore beable to fire them if they screw up).
1. PayGo: Each piece of legislation must include in the same legislation how it will be paid for (with spending cut offsets from other parts of the budget, or revenue increases). In the event of emergency (declared by a minimum of 2/3 of each chamber of Congress), PayGo can be suspended for a 12 month period. This State of Emergency can be renewed with an ongoing super majority of 2/3 vote.
–Bad idea. What constitutes emergency? 9/11? Wildfires? Joplin Tornado? Katrina? Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya? BP Oil Spill? GM/Ford/AIG Bankruptcy? Recent History is full of "emergencies"... one Congressman's emergency is another ones annoyance and it would split based on political party making it just as political as it already is.
--
2. Proportional Representation: Following the British example, we would seek to end the duopoly on power... and give a voice for libertarians, populists, socialists, etc that do not have a real political party to represent their views.
–they do have a voice. They are a minority and the power goes to those who have a majority. This is what our democracy is about. You may argue that the electoral college proves a majority doesn't rule.. wrong.. its given to the states as well that majority wins.. and GWB won Florida's majority by 537 votes.. and thus a majority of the electoral votes..
3. Parliamentary System: A parliament (the House) would hold legislative power, and would elect from their membership a Prime Minister. We end the inability to know who is responsible for bad policy... when a party is in power, and things do not work, we would KNOW who to fire. This would end the Executive and Legislative able to just blame each other, and both get re-elected.
- well if you didnt know, the American people did fire the party in power in Nov 2010, at least in the House... as well as in Nov 2008.. with the presidency and both chambers of Congress.. In fact about every 6-10 years the parties get fired en masse..
This post makes a powerful and evidence based point: The current system produces failure of the parties in power. Every 6 to 10 years we fire the party in power. The party system with its coalitions is self defeating.
The elected officials, in order to get elected, must promise what they cannot fulfill, and then, if elected, must vote for lobbyist, special interest, and coalition proposals in order to fund re-election. This is reality and most federal government is inefficient at best and a failure at worst. Only a major change in the Constitution (elections and the voting process) will solve the problem. There are several solutions, and Iceland has offered one.
There are a few things that could be done in rewriting the constitution to make our system of government function more effectively.
I believe we would be much more successful with a Parliamentary system, complete with a Premier/Prime Minister and the Cabinet in the House of Representatives, motions of no-confidence, opposition days, question period, and where governments can fall if a budget isn't passed. Keep the Senate represented as it is by the states, but remove the filibustering ability. Also, the House should be able to override the Senate on any matters of national finance. Change the Senate to where ~half is elected every three years.
For the Presidency, make it a more ceremonial position... still as commander-in-chief, and he/she still has to grant assent or veto to every bill, but the House could be able to override the President on financial matters with a super majority. Make the President's term a single, non renewable 6 year term.
Hitler and Stalin could not make the people of the USA give up their constitution and this little brown man will? LOL-dpeort him to whatever third world he came from or his parents did-anchor baby? You betcha!
One human, one vote in Presidential elections–abolish the electoral college. A declaration of the Rights of Nature and a commitment to clean air and water, because after all, humans need these things to thrive and we are continually fouling our nest. A firm declaration that corporations are not people and as such, are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns in any way, shape, or form.
IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE THE CITIZENSHIP FOR HISPANICS , BLACKS AND BUMS
Got hate, do you?
Are you a mouth breather, an inbred, or a mouth breathing inbred?
OK. Let's start with you, JonH....you're obviously a bum.
Pulling Constitution ideas from Facebook?! Are they serious?! "Like...OMGZ...the US shud totally, like, get rid of hatez and presidentz an jus let uz run our selfs." Yeah......great idea! Now ball it up, and throw it in the trash.
Oh, and on elections, set up an independent electoral commission that runs every federal election and creates every district, ensuring that they are fair and not gerrymandered. For the House of Representatives, have 450 district seats determined by Instant Runoff Voting. Have an additional 50 seats given by national party vote where a party has to receive 2% to obtain a seat. This would allow for more parties and viewpoints to have a say in the house. Limit campaign periods to 60 days in general elections and 30 days in by-elections.
It makes sense that Fareed Zakaria would want to change America. He probably wants us to be more Eastern in a lot of ways. I think the fact that some tweeking has taken place shows that efforts are being made to address any updating necessary.
I believe the constitution needs a full overhaul. Unfortunately instead of being written by a small group of patriots it would be written, as most laws are in this country, by special interests and lobbies. NO THANK YOU!
I'm not sure I would want to see it happen...
With the ultra right attitude today, I could see a constitution that would force me to pray to a specific God. I'm a Christian, but many of my friends are of various other religions, and I just can't see forcing a specific religion on anyone. So thanks, but no thanks to any new constitution that might force another's beliefs on them.
I could see segments of our population being blantantly discriminated against under the guise of a new constitution. I'm as white and as straight as they come & married to the same guy for over 40 years, but I have friends who are of other ethnic originals and friends who are divorced and friends who are gay, and they are all wonderful caring people. So thanks, but no thanks to any new constitution that might discriminate against them.
I just hope that sometime before I die that I can see Americans come together again as Americans and knock off all this us against them, right against left, I'm right – you're wrong mentality. I've been on this earth 65 years now, and it truly saddens me to see how people have become so hateful & mean to others. Aren't we all supposedly created equally? Then when are we going to start acting like it?
We are a republic....not a democracy. Anyone saying our election system is not democratic is missing the point.
There is way too much grey area in our government. The two parties argue in order to try and please their party to the extreme degree in order to remain elected officials and enjoy the good life. The boundaries of government need to be established. Where does the interest of the people begin and end? What are the limits to social programs needed? What are requirements needed to wage war? What are reasonable tax requirements of every person AND corporation. The Bill of Rights seems to be protecting us from the government but now the government is being hijacked by corporations and bending it to their will. So, who protects the government from them? Pure capitalism wont work and pure socialism wont either. We need to define the balance of each we want our government to observe.
Are you out of your mind ...Why do Liberal like yourself suggest crap like that...The idea of letting a bunch of Social Media Morons rewrite one of the greatest documents of all time is insane....I cannot wait until the Liberals and democrats are out of power and we begin to get our country back...I have an idea why don't we give you say Northern California and you can get let a bunch of Twits to write your constitution and then you can stick it up your Liberal Ass and live happily ever after in your utopia...We will win our country back and people like you will crawl back into your holes...Go to Hell...Rick Perry in 2012 lets hope.....
Why change the Constitution? The document is perfect as it is. The Bill of Rights assures Liberty for all, so what is the problem? Maybe the problem is that the Constitution is a wild inconvenience for the powers that be. It causes problems for presidents who want to override Congress. And the powers of the Congress, prescribed in the Constitution, are ignored by the presidency. If anything, it's the executive branch that must be brought to heel and subjugated to the Congress.
3 changes huh?
ok
1. legalize slavery again
2. put a bounty on illegal aliens
3. mandatory death sentence for being caught with pot or illegal drugs
a perfect constitution
Slavery is legalized in some ways.. and its the illegals who work for very low wages in the worst of conditions who are enslaved.
But... you are stupid because you want to legalize slavery now... and a black man is running the country.. who do you think the slaves will be this time around?
This has got to be one of the most idiotic postings ever submitted by a professional journalist and selected for publication by a recognized news site. A second Constitutional Convention brought to you by American Idol! What could be better for American democracy? As was already pointed out you clearly do not understand anything about the Great Compromise and its importance to the very core of our federal republican (not the party) system. You also don't understand much about the electoral college (which is admittedly far from perfect, but what system is?) or the 2000 election to claim that the country was "paralyzed". You obviously dislike the outcome of the race for reasons probably associated with your own political bias. But the truth of the matter is that the judicial system handled those extraordinary events quite well, and a conclusion to an election decided by a few hundred votes was established in only a few weeks. Stick to foreign policy analysis before you embarrass yourself further, Mr. Zakaria
Germany is a federal republic it has a parliament. get you're definitions right
and that parliament has a party system with proportional representation.
Goodness gracious great balls of fire! Letting those proponents of puerile posturing (the "Social Media") have anything to do with re-writing the constitution curdles my blood. Zakaria has clearly been smoking or sipping the wrong juice, to even suggest such a thing. Next it will be public mooning!
We need to do away with the electoral college, and let all votes count. And we need to keep the CORPORATIONS out of the Consitution. The Beast that has taken on a monsterous life of its own, that even the Supreme Court has given rights too over humanity.
I would very much welcome such a proposal. Sadly, I would not have much hope for the finished product given the shortage of critical thinking skills within the US population.
You are bang on. The constitution and most of the laws are pretty darn good. The main problem with this country is the people. This is still very much a racist country and above all else a very selfish country as a whole.
The Constitution is not a shopping list. It shouldn't be changed everytime some pet issue gets people 'motivated'. It should be amended, from time to time, as necessary and with difficulty.
Look at how politicized Scotus has become. Remember how the GOP tried to politicize the entire Justicee Department. We need a document and set of rules that stand the test of time and are difficult to change.
Congress, Scotus and the President would do well to reduce the amount of radical changes that are taking place with each swing of the political pendulum. Yes, we need change. It should take place gradually, (unless there is a national emergency.)
I have serious reservations about the people in charge nowadays the the parties involved could make rational choices to make constitution changes. The integrity of our current parties is questionable at best. I vote, NO!!! people are corrupt and inept right now.
Good Lord!! Our Constitution is fine... and when changes are needed, that's where our Bill of Rights comes into play. I'm not a brainiac about our government but one thing I do know, NON Americans need to mind their business and let us mind ours!
Pulease. First Fareed Zakaria suggests that America is behind the times in his pieces and books, now he espouses the changing of the Constitution because if Iceland can do it, America can do it. He actually compares the age of Icelands Constitution to America's suggesting that change is good for the country.
This is unreal. FZ also suggests that America employ social media to achieve these changes. What pray tell was wrong with the 2000 election. While I abhor its result I applaud its process. Why does FZ not know the difference between the House and the Senate? What is Fareed Zakaria trying to change?
Is he a plant who has achieved renown, and now forments? Maybe.
I could think of some worthy and uncontroversial additions to the Constitution. Among them, no corporate money in any elections. Equal pay for equal work. And the option to establish national referendums on pressing issues shared by nearly all the states–guns, nuclear power, energy, etc.–rather than a state by state resolution. But we would also see a dog fight over social issues. Inevitably, conservative states would seek repeal of Roe v. Wade and to ban abortion in all circumstances. Similarly, there would be a movement to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation, despite the very clear wording of that portion of the First Amendment that addresses it. And many parties wish to ban the Fed, the IRS and other agencies they feel to be intrusive.
Revising, updating or amending the Constitution would almost require a Constitution in itself to establish rules and priorities for that alteration. Political and religious conservatives would seek hegemony of the document along the lines of their ideology; progressives would take a more open, humanist, secular and inclusive view. With all the dust that such a 21st Century Constitution Convention could raise, perhaps its almost better to leave the masterful but aging original as it is.
Democracy is great, but doesn't this defeat the purpose of writing a constitution in the first place? Democracy ties into it because the people voted to change their constitution in the article above. It may be for the better of their constitution, but I suppose I'm a little arrogant since our four father's here in the U.S. were f'n genius!
The United States Constitution is a creation of compromise. The emerging northern industrial colonies and the southern slave holding colonies had to compromise in order to secure their economic interests, while forging a political document of self-determination. In today's political climate circa:2011.. revision of the United States Constitution would mean an end of the American Republic. Gridlock and total political gamesmanship would ensue ! The Founding Fathers were politically astute in that they probably saw into the future, and wrote procedures mechanisms for amendments.
It is comical how some members of congress keep a copy in there top pocket. It is as you say the greatest document regarding the founding of a republic ever written. But times have changed from the way we dress to the way provide for our family's. Sure we no longer own slaves nor do we cure sickness in the same archaic fashion. So to carry the document as the do still referring to it as gospel in it original form is ridiculous. Just as we have amended it to end slavery. We should amend it to fix modern problems for the modern society we have become. I think it is admirable to carry the constitution as founding document that speaks to the historical significance of the founding of United States of America. That is what it is history. To say that it speaks to our core values is to say slavery is part of our core values. The document should grow like our great nation has grown. We are the greatest county on earth in the history of mankind.
You, and only you, can prevent Obamunism.
A revised Constitution should outlaw "corporate personhood" and strip transnational corporations of the power they now have that the original Constitution never endowed to them – in particular the right to buy elections via the Citizens United ruling should be permanently banned as it undermines the legitimacy of our entire government.
Bad idea on several fronts: (1) We can't get our act together enough to decide on basic spending and taxation measures to keep our country from going bankrupt. How, then, do you imagine we'll get together enough to alter the fundamental underpinning of our entire nation? (2) The Constitution already has a mechanism to change it; why not just use it?
Now, as for your understanding of American Constitutional history: (1) the fact that we have two legislative branches - one based on population and the other not based on population - was intended to protect "little Wisconsin" from being bullied by the big population states. If you take away the Senate, then there'll only be a handful of states with the population to make things happen. (2) the Electoral College is indeed an outdated system that should be abolished by amending the Constitution. The College originally was for making the system work when communication was by horseback. That time is long since passed, obviously.
The Beginning -Middle & End= YOU ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!
Fareed Zakaria, I appreciate what you tried to do here. I too believe the Constitution again requires updating. I agree with many that the 17th amendment is the largest issue with the Constitution as it weakens the voice of the States in lawmaking therefore removing a check on popular vote. I think that the Electoral College forces a two party political system where you are either for them or against them. This I believe has created the polarization of our politics. Further, I believe this polarization indirectly created the majority of the problems we face today. I would offer the following as a solution.
Require each party to select only one candidate for president. (Something like a petition will be needed to limit the number parties involved to those of the most relevance). Then elect the president by direct vote. (In case of no clear majority then the top 3 candidates run off, if still no majority then top 2). This gets rid of the Electoral College and allows each vote to mean something even if your candidate does not win.
Allow the parties to select the Representatives based on the percentage of votes received (if one party had 14% of the vote then they select 14% of the House.) Allow the states to select their representatives in the Senate as they see fit (If the states want to throw away their representation then I see no easy way to stop them) this would restore the intended balance of the will of the people vs. the will of the government. Also and unlike our current system, it would allow a third party to have a strong voice in the form of the swing vote. The effect would be to centralize politics because radicalization of the parties like we have now would drive people to a third party. This would prevent things like the all or nothing budget battles we are seeing now.
Completely disagree with your terrible short sighted idea. The Electoral College is there to balance the weight of the population and to get the representation where it's supposed to be. A direct vote means people living in farm country will be stuck with representation from urban areas, at least in terms of political view point. We are NOT a democracy. Every single democracy has failed. We ARE a representative republic. Move to a democracy if you don't like it here. Oh, wait. 50% of your wealth gets seized by the IRS when you emigrate from the USA now.
Absolutely NOT. This isn't some Hollywood franchise that needs to be rebooted. This is the United States of America. One thing we can bring back is that old saying from the 1960's, "Love it or leave it!"
The constitution is meant to protect us from the rich taking over and people forcing their ideas and way of life on us if we choose not to live within a bubble. To protect us from taxation on things like roads and the Internet. It was meant to give us the freedom of speech and press and beliefs. It was meant to prevent people being slaves to the wealthy and to jobs. It was meant to set the stage for mankind to persue happiness and a better life among those who wish to control and mislead humanity which for in the most part, without those who want to rule and be wealthy, humanity is and has always been good, a creation of God or the universe, seeking and sharing, love, pain, and even suffering for the benefit of each other.
JS
If I could make one change to the way our government is run, it would not necessarily be a change to the constitution. It would be to apply the constitution to our work place. First, I would repeal the evil Taft/Hartley. Then, I would fund as much of our adult education as possible into labor unions. Third, and this is the most important, I would create a new category of corporation, call it what you like, it would be modeled after the US Constitution.
The Executive branch of the corporation would be the same as it is today. It would include the CEO and his officers and supervisors. The board of directors, the executive branch would change, dramatically.
Their would be two boards-of-directors. The upper board, the current board, would remain the same, elected by the stockholders, one stock, one vote. To this would be added a second board-of-directors. Call it what you like.
This board would be elected by the stock holders, one stock holder, one vote. The stockholder would have to be defined as the entity with voting rights. If a Mutual Fund purchased stocks on behalf of its members, and voted on their behalf, that is one entity, therefore, one vote. If a labor union purchased stock for each of its members, and distributed voting rights to those members by rule, each member would have one vote. As per our US Constitution, all budget votes and major expenditure and revenue votes would have to originate in this lower board-of-directors.
If a corporation wanted to move its plant to a third world nation, it would submit its recommendation to the lower board of directors. Controlled by the labor unions, the plan would of course fail. A proposal to pay corporate fat cat CEO's bloated salaries and the little people little to nothing, would of course fail. With this important check and balance in place, the bloated salaries we currently see at the top would simply cease.
The judiciary of this new corporation would be mediation panels set up by labor unions, corporate executives, and other special interest groups owning stock in the corporation.
All that would be needed would be for a bill to be introduced and passed by our Congress and signed by our president, setting up this new corporation. This bill would also have to require that the federal government and all state and local governments receiving government funds give the strongest preference to these new governments when purchasing.
Also, the government would encourage labor unions to set up apprenticeship programs. When workers became master craftsmen, the unions and the government would work with special interest groups to find individuals, corporate and special interest entities willing to buy stock in corporations these master craftsmen would create and create new companies to create more competition, lower prices and increase wages. This is the plan, how do we start?
Charles dear fellow this is a discussion of the Constitution of the United States I think you are in the wrong place.
By the way you should spell There as "there" not "their".
A separate constitution of the United States to regulate businesses: to protect people, the government, and the economy from businesses. Citizens are regulated by laws, while corporations enjoy less liability.
Include Anti-lobying laws as so many in this post have mentioned. Upkeep trade laws, that many have been pushed aside in the past decade. Protect workers rights: let them have a say, instead of letting external shareholders dictate the company they work for. Prevent abusive corporate practices towards the American citizen. Protection from healthcare practices as some in this post have mentioned. Include already set laws to this constitution.
Great idea! Let's update the Constitution! First lets change the line "We the People" to "We the Corporations, Lobbyists, and Special Interest Groups."
Hey, while were shredding it we might as well get rid of all those pesky Ammendments, especially the first 10. Maybe we can replace them with quotes from Jersey Shore or something.
Thank GOD the Constitution isn't Democratic! Real "Democracy" is mob rule. Whatever the majority says goes. Thank God we are a Representative REPUBLIC of independent states and unalienable rights that come from God, our Creator and NO Government can take away , that NO majority can take away, and can ONLY be taken away by a overwhelming super-majority of state legislatures and both houses of congress.
Thanks GOD we are not the Venezuelan type democracy that you want us to be, where government decides what your rights are, where government decides what you can have and what you cant. Because that is mob rule, it TRAMPLES people's unalienable rights and it is EVIL.
REPUBLIC does not mean what you think it means, It just meant that system you have doesnt have a king or monarch. Germany is a republic but has proportional representation. Germany is also Federal it has an upper house called the bundesrat which represents states interest in fact the govenments the individual states are the representatives in this chamber. federalism is different than republic and still even federalism you can have 1 man 1 vote. in the bundesrat votes are apportioned by population get you're definitions right
Hate to break it to ya, Jumbo, but your "God-give rights" are being taken away from you every day by your government which rules in secrecy and at the whim of the rich and big business.
The new constitution should have a provision that only people of intelligence can vote. Belief in a bone idle old fart who created the universe from a puff of smoke 6000 years ago would automatically class you as BRAIN DEAD and therefore ineligible to vote
Dear Mr. Zakaria,
Thank you for another thought provoking article.
Top three things I would add to the Constitution or add to a future constitution.
1) A simple tax structure. As we see in Greece as well as in the U.S. many people are not paying their fair share.
2) Corporate acountability. Corporations should always be allowed to make profits, but not at our expense.
3) A revised judicial system. It is broken on many levels. State & Federal level.
(on the ipad, so sorry for any spelling errors.)
You thanked him for a thought provoking article.
As you see by many of the simple minded answers..
most people don't have many coherent, relevant thoughts..
I think it's a great idea.
Let's make a new Constitution based on Twitter and Facebook comments. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Thanks Zakaria! You've saved me some valuable time - I won't waste my time ever reading anything you say again! That would be hilarious if it were a joke, but it's pretty scary that you weren't kidding!
I think we need to look beyond the Constitution. It is 2011 now, not 1787. Our communication technology is vastly different to what it was in 1787. The Founding Fathers defined a democracy that worked within the limitations of the technologies of their day. Those limitations no longer apply. The government that they defined is simply not working in 2011. What part of the federal government is functioning worse that Congress? In my 32 years, I struggle to think of anything that Congress has accomplished that was effective. Congress is simply not solving the problems that a modern nation such as the US faces. We are all fools if we look at the failure of our government and, because of teachings back in high school, refuse to reconsider how a better approach might now work. We need to let go of blind ideologies for they are killing the US. We are a rational people after all. Aren't we?
GCV, I must disagree with your stated cause of the non-functioning of today’s government. I believe it is because of changes that where made (particularly the 17th amendment) that have caused the polarization that is at the heart of most of our problems. I do agree with you about the Electoral College though.
Are you out of your mind? The reason that it's so very difficult to amend the constitution is to protect the country from the extremes of politics. Opening the constitution to major revision would risk the moderation which the constitution forces on the politicians in their governance.
Moderation? The only moderation we have is gridlock in Congress.
We just need two things right now:
1. An amendment defining for-profit organizations as non-persons; and
2. An amendment defining the giving of money and other assets as non-speech.
Given the fact that we have a constitution that has a system in place to amend itself there is no issue. We have made many changes by amendment over the years. To think that it would be wise to start over is foolish. It is always those that can't get their way that want to subvert the system.
Term limits for senators and supreme court justices would be great ideas.
As for a potential re-structuring of the economy – the public could have democratic representation in the investment process, instead of being held hostage to the whims of the minority with mass private savings (who have arguably 'earned' those fortunes by extorting their employees via taxation without representation on wages in companies')
Behind the Bible, the US Constitution is arguably the greatest document ever written. Amend as needed if we must, but the founders weren't interested in covering every consevable issue, they were interested in covering the fundemental, basic rights which we still enjoy today. No new document can conceive of our society 200 years from now any better than one that already exists.
David,
Oddly, you are exactly the reason I don't want to see a do-over of the constitution. Given our polarized politics, a constitutional convention 2.0 would undoubtedly degenerate into a clown show of special interest on the extremes of our society. Just imagine the constitutional war over abortion, or state sponsorship of religion, or the environment, or taxes. Our leaders of today simply dont have the wisdom and the ability to compromise like our leaders of old.
This was the first thing that entered my mind when I read the headline of this article. A constitutional convention would be comical and disastrous. Thinking we would go in to 'fix' just a couple of items like electoral confusions is naive.
The biggest issue I see is 'winner-take-all' states. If I vote for one candidate I do not want my vote counting for the opposing candidate. I see no reason why this practice is considered constitutional. We need to abolish the outdated and misused electoral college alltogether and elect our President based purely on popular vote.
A popular only vote would lead to way more corruption in elections than those of smaller countries. There is a ton of money out there to buy votes, and it will flow like you wont believe.
The system we have in place both gives a share of electoral power to the federal and state governments.
This is what the founding fathers had in mind when they established it.
The way a person reacts to any suggestions (or a call for suggestions) – irrespective of whether they lack intelligence or are great questions – speaks more about the person than the author here. A vitriolic diatribe, or brushing off any idea with absolute disdain speaks more about the one reacting rather the one originally posting. This is a country of free speech, right? so let people speak. And the constitution may be great, but anything can be improved. Whats the harm in thinking once? if you still dont like the idea, don't amend it. And no, Zakaria does not come from Pakistan (which by the way is a democracy , at least for now, and not a very stable one. He does come from India though, and that country is the biggest democracy out there with a fairly involved political process. It is undoubtedly more corrupt than the US. The question on equal representation per person or per state or both is a bit philosophical and is faced by his country of birth too. In a small country, specially a homogenous one, direct representation works best. In a large one, to avoid the rule of a faction or the predominant race or state, there is some indirect representation. The latter appears a lot more frustrating in a two party system though.
Oh I'm pretty sure the first thing everyone would want to "revise" is our right to bear arms. Disarming Honest,law abiding Americans to pave the way for more lawlessness and power mad politicians would surely be a top priority. Morons.
I think that the morons are those that look around the world and can't see that the more violent societies (like our own) are those where the population are armed. We really need to get beyond the brainwashing that is done to our youth in high school civics class. The US is no longer that shining beacon of democracy that everyone strives to emulate. In fact, of the 30 nations in this world that are regarded as democracies, we only rate at a poor #17. We should be #1.
It would be a lot worse if there werent armed citizens to defend this country and the weaker people who don't seem to cherish their lives enough to defend themselves against evil but would rather limit the power of those of us who do value human life and wish to protect it. The media has done quite well with their anti-gun campaign obviously.
Oh, surprise! He's Muslim!
The only way out of this is another civil war. It's going to come down to that anyway. Liberal and Conservative cant agree. A new constitution should only be fashioned by the victor of this 2nd civil war.
This second civil war has been underway for quite some time. By my recollection, it began with the ascension of Newt Gingrich and his goons in 1994. Ever since then, Congress has been a battleground. The first major battle was the battle to impeach Bill Clinton led by the hypocrite Newt himself. There have been countless skirmishes ever since. The electiion fiasco in 2000 only hieghtened the tensions between the two sides. The healthcare debate last year was probably the largest battle. It's surprising to me that the goings on in Congress haven't yet been recoganized as a war. Both sides are laying waste to this nation in their efforts to come out ahead. The damage done to the US over the past 16 years has been as large as any physical war could have ever afflicted.
Fareed – Are you high? Rewrite the constitution? The very moment Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law was when this country went into the toilet. Why the US government handed over the money power to private bankers is beyond my wildest dreams. The Constitution has nothing do with the demise of the United States. It has to do with the muppets sitting on the Hill.
I don't know where to start with this train wreck of an article. Clearly, Mr.Zakaria has no idea how our Senate is supposed to work. The states are supposed to be equal there, regardless of size to ensure small states don't get squeezed out of the process. Get ideas from Twitter and Facebook? I can't believe he actually put that into print.
Clearly Mr Zakaria does not understand the amendment process. There is already process to make changes to the Constitution. Perhaps he should go through the channels already there instead of going the easy route, and channeling a bunch of young adults at their computers who don't know anything about the government.I have read this guy for a while on different platforms. He is a hack who is not afraid to write articles with little to no studies or polling behind it with a catchy title.
The USA Constitution can be changed at ANY TIME. There's a well-defined process for it.
If that process is not being invoked, it means we don't really want to change it.
i would limit civil right groups like aclu . however the goverment could not exploit this law . the county needs less court fights over many religous reasons . we need to add to the constituoin we are a christian nation , but we also welcome all other religons but to the imigrants or visitors who end up living here we are a christian nation . thank you .
define christian nation for us.
Sheesh, this post alone is the reason why I wouldn't trust any of our current leaders with rewriting a high school term paper let alone the consitiution.
You *do* realize the entire purpose of the ACLU (which it does superbly) is to protect and uphold the civil rights of Americans as guaranteed under the Constitution? Can't understand how this would be a bad thing . . .
"Christian" nation? Uh, no. The majority of the Founding Fathers were most assuredly *not* Christian, and the best of them (Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al) wrote convincingly of their opposition to the role of religion in the public arena.
It's comments like these that make me terrified to open up the Constitution for revision :/ Who knows what cr*p would get in there from right-wing nut jobs?
update the constitution?
Most americans didn't even read the original. And if they did read the original, it was probably in some boring highschool class where the topic was taught in the most boring way possible.
But if the constitution was ready for an update, I'd say abolish the SENATE. We have the technology to let people vote directly on laws created by the house of representatives. And if the laws were to revolutionary, the president could aways veto them. The house could override the veto with it's typical 2/3rds majority if absolutely needed.
As it stands right now, the senate is the one mostly being paid off. It's the most corrupt branch of government with the supreme court being a close second. I forget who said it, but the senate was originally designed to "slow down" the people's will created in the house. IT was a way for the rich to stay rich. Guess what.... it's still performing it's originally design admirabley lol... to our detriment of course.
HELL NO, what sort of fool would let these Washington crooks rewrite the constitution, I'm sure they will only use the suggestions made by corporate & foreign lobbyists. " A fool and his freedom will soon part"
I can see it now. Instead of promoting new amendments as making the constitution more efficient and adapting it to the modern age, both parties will just run attack ads accusing the other of "ruining" it and trying to enslave the American people. And everyone will believe that. So no matter how perfect the amendments are, the public still would never give them a chance in hell of passing. Still, it is an interesting thought exercise.
Well, Fareed? I think you got your answer. There's barely enough intelligence in these comments to form a comprehensive, understandable document. All the moronic bickering and name calling and you think Americans could EVER agree on a single document. Hell, Jefferson himself expected the Constitution to be rewritten every so often to reflect changes in society. For Americans it’s like asking then to change the wording in the Bible.
The plain and obvious truth is that America has gotten too big, too complex, and too splintered to govern as an undivided union.
A reexamination of our Constitution is most assuredly needed, but it is an impossible task. Better to let it all fall apart and then pick up the pieces regionally as separate nations.
Bang on!
Good for Iceland! Way advanced in thinking than the U.S. will ever be.
That is the dumbest article ever written. The constitution was written by the most brilliant and philisophical minds in history, forged by years of fighting and strife. And you want to open it up to any idiot with a keyboard? I agree updating is in order, but leaving it in the hands of the morons that live in this country would be an abomination. What is needed is a dedicated think tank of non political idealogues to recommend and clean up the constitution and laws of the nation.
The only REAL things that need to be rewritten in the Constitution are to get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices (it should be 10 years at most) and enshrine term limits for politicians in Congress.
Everything else in the Constitution has a very good reason why it was included.
Our founding fathers thought about this long and hard. The system they created is ingenious. Spend time and think about why there are only 2 Senators from each state. They were supposed to represent State's rights, but that changed with an amendment that screwed around with the original thinking. We are the envy of the world for a reason....things are screwed up because our politicians don't follow or understand the constitution and the way the federal government's role is too expansive.
David, the federal government role is not too expansive. If anything, it is not expansive ENOUGH today and some of the states powers need to be taken away from them and the federal government needs to have those powers. Such as sales taxes.... now that we have the internet, we are having problems with states not getting paid their sales taxes. Easy solution? A federal sales tax.
It would pass Constitutional muster, but you would have the Republicans fighting it tooth and nail based on 'states rights'.
I do agree it is time to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America. Let me list the reasons.
1) The Presidency is outdated. It is time we elect our Cabinet members. It is also time that each Cabinet member (i.e. The Secretary of State handles all foriegn policy and relations...) be assigned specific duties. The Cabinet should be an executive body that decides as a whole on which legislation should (or not)be signed into law.
2) Congress needs more controls. An example is that Congress should not pass legislation that gives them benefits their constituents do not enjoy.
3) The Constitution should clearly state "All human beings are created equal and will enjoy equal protection under the law".
4) The Constitution should specify the rights of minors and immigrants. Children should not be made into political pawns. And, we are a nation of immigrants, why shouldn't we protect those that want to become citizens.
5) The Constitution should guarentee that all citizens will not be denied a voice in any relationship. This includes labor relations, among others.
6)There should be a health care guarentee for all citizens.
7)Limitations on election dates and times should be eliminated. We should be able to vote on voting day for 24 hours and the weekends should be available as possible voting days.
8)The mention of G*d should be eliminated from all government documents and official pledges and anthems.
9)Alll government documents should be available in every language known to man.
10)It should be clearly stated that there is no official language of the United States.
11)There should be a guarentee that all citizens shall enjoy a free, equal (funded, non-segregated, etc.) education from birth to the age of 21.
These are the biggest issues that I feel should be addressed. I feel that the Federalist are finally winning after 200 years of trying. We are an agricultural, industrial, multicultural nation and our Constitution should reflect the face of all Americans, not just 39 who wrote it over 200 years ago.
This is the most idiotic article I have ever read. Our Constitution tells the government what it can't do to us, the citizens. That is the reason this country has been so successful. Our founders had great insight into the heart of men. They realized that if you give government too much power, that it would be just a matter of time before the people would become slaves to the bureaucracy. Our freedoms have been slowly stripped from us for the past 100 years, starting with Woodrow Wilson and exploding exponentially through the Roosevelt years and now you want to completely make us into a socialist state. We are a Republic of States, not a Democracy. We ought to start returning back to the time of limited government involvement not increasing it. Leave the Constitution alone.
i don't want the idiots who post to facebook and twitter all the time deciding anything at all with the constitution ... talk about the most unqualified people to do the most important job ... there's a reason why the founding fathers didn't invite input from the mindless masses ... and they were right ...
What is wrong with the existing methods available to update the US Constitution? If we as a country need to make changes then I feel it needs more thought than just a tweet. Put some skin in the game and get out and convince others to agree with you. It takes time to do that and that is a good thing. Use the existing system to make your case for change. Get involved!
Is he nuts? We can't even agree whether to keep the Pledge of Allegiance....Only communists want to change the constitution and it's that simple . And if you're one of those who think it should be done, you're a communist and don't even realize it, because you derive all your information from CNN and John Stewart in between Netroots conventions and bong hits.
Our founders were more brilliant than any humans in man's entire history on this planet aside from Jesus, there's not a person in this country today smart enough to keep people like Anthony Weiner from wielding and abusing power. That's not the constitution, it's the individual's lack of constitution. Without GOD in America it ceases to exist and as GOD is removed so is Gods divine providence over this once great nation which is what's bringing about it's planned implosion by those who seek to remove HIM.
Perhaps if more than half this country bothered to freaking vote the nation wouldn't be in the dire straits it is right now.
You don't fix what's not broken. It's not the constitution that's broken, it's the people, the illegal aliens who don't give a damnn, the hoodies who think because slavery existed 150 years ago Americans owe them a big fat check for some reason as if the Founders invented slavery. It still goes on today in Africa and elsewhere and we're responsible for it? It's the lazy and ignorant from all walks and all communities dragging the nation down, the people who think the country OWES THEM instead of them OWING THE COUNTRY for the rare in this world freedom it and it's soldiers provide you and me and every other jerkoff.
Problem is too many people looking for a free ride, and the old saying goes 'Freedom isn't free' and half the reason half the globe still doesn't taste freedom is because those people can't handle the personal responsibility that comes with freedom, and half of them are in this country now infecting it like a deadly virus. Get rid of the deadweight deadbeats who won't work or won't learn and educate themselves even though It's free and the nation runs like a top. It's that simple.
That's what's broken, not the Constitution. And people trying to blame a piece of paper with rules they wish not to live by instead of looking inward for the causes of their problems when the answer is usually staring them right in the mirror. Even Michael Jackson knew this. It starts in your own backyard, if we clean our own the country runs itself but you have to have morals and values to rule over one's self and still you or me aren't GOD, ONLY GOD IS GOD. Not Obama.
I have bad news for you god isn't mentioned once in the constitution
I can not think of a single one of today's politicians who could be trusted to touch a single word of our existing constitution, which is the only document we, the people, have to protect us from our own government.
Exactly why it should NOT be touched.
Well said...and without labels or malice.
Only an ultra-liberal CNN reporter would even ask such a foolish question.
Anyone who thinks that changing the constitution is going to solve any of our economic or social problems misunderstands its role. The constitution cannot force people in government to do the right thing; it can only – if we're lucky – prevent them from doing the wrong thing. Tweaking things like the electoral college or the number of senators per state will not restore the housing market or eliminate our national debt. It will not prevent unjust wars or contested elections. All it will do is devote political capital and our national attention away from issues of much greater and more substantive importance.
Iceland is not only a much smaller nation than the US it is also more culturally and socially cohesive. An attempt to rewrite the US Constitution would ultimately force us to concentrate on our differences more than those areas upon which we agree. Consensus would never be reached. It would shatter the country into three or four largish pieces and an independent state or two.
A well thought-out comment on CNN? Unheard of.
TM, this is a very good point. I can see the debate over the "right to bear arms" and the "free exercise and no establishment of religion" tearing the country apart.
Fareed, you can piss off. I swore an oath to protect and defend the Current Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I don't give rats ass what Iceland does. Don't declare yourself an enemy of the US Constitution, you will regret it.
George, while I can only assume that you serve our nation in the armed forces, if that is the case, then I offer you my greatest respect. That being said, there is a reason that you, and many others serve: to defend the people and their freedom. These freedoms include the freedoms of speech and the press. Therefore, I find it highly anti-American for you to serve veiled threats to a reporter because he is asking a question and exercising his freedom under the Constitution you claim to defend. Perhaps they skipped civics in basic training?
The structure of the Senate serves a vital role in preserving the proper participation of the states in our Union. One-person, one-vote has no place in that context. I'm astonished you missed this.
What? Depend on the PEOPLE to do something?
Only if they kill all television and radio shows a full 2 years before it happens. Make people read the Constitution as it is now and get involved in their communities. Otherwise we'll end up with a contract for America's Got Talent instead of a Constitution.
Add healthcare to the bill of rights. It's more than a right, it's an instinct.
Wow, your comment about the Senate is a little absurd. It shows a severe lack of understanding on your part of the role that states play in the federal government.
The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution always intended for that to be a "living" document, that was to be frequently revisited and changed as necessary.
The Constitution was not carved into stone tablets.
Daveindiego
Nice academic exercise but I shudder to think what would happen if we gave opportunity to rewrite the Constitution to the current generation of pols. The Obamacare bill ran 2,000 pages. The IRS tax code has nearly 72,000 pages (seven times a long as the Bible). By the time the "pork barrell" gang got done, you'd need a Brinks truck to lug it around.
But here's a thought. Let's cleanup the election process – get rid of career politicians. Instituting term limits, eliminating life-time pensions and requiring Congress to abide under the same laws and benefits as they convey upon theiir constituents would be a good start. And then, with a new generation of elected officials we can consider whether to change our most sacred of documents.
Career politicians were an abhorance to the founders of this country – no reason to let the inmates write the laws.
Mark – your comment is right on, career politicians who pander to special interest groups and focus their energies on pork barrel spending waste tax dollars.
In addition to strict term limits, I think we should limit Congress to two two-week sessions per year (except in strictly defined emergencies) and cut their salaries to a modest stipend so they have to have a real job in the real world.
Ridiculous article/conversation – it's called an amendment. The greatest thing about the constitution is how unbelievably well thought out it is and while it is hard to do it can be changed when there is an absolute need. The thought of making a more pliable document is completely insane.
Don't come to America with hopes to disrupt our most cherished values. We don't need the failures of your homelands repeated here. The constitution is the framework of our democracy that you obviously left your homeland craving. Leave it be and enjoy
Absolutely the worst idea you've evey had.
Update it immediately. No more Anchor Babies!!!!!!
There are so many things wrong with this article – I don't even want to begin. Obviously this author is from some place that changes their constitution every time the wind blows. There is a reason for the number in the senate and the number in the House and not limiting the supreme court. If you don't like the constitution, go to Ice Land and make it the way you want it but leave ours alone!!
We need an amendment specifically denying corporate "citizens" any citizenship rights.
I can see the appeal but I very much fear that the religious religious right would try to change our country to a Christian nation instead of a religion-neutral one. I'd rather keep our current constitution locked away and untouchable.
Uh...newsflash....America was founded by Christians... It's ingrained in this country and is part if our most cherished beliefs. All are entitled to pursue religious freedom but let's not forget the principles that made this country great.
get rid of the Constituition, its useless nowadays
Anyone who receives a government handout in the form of welfare, food stamps, access to taxpayer-supported health-care, should be disallowed to vote for a couple of years. It's simple conflict of interest.
Great suggestion!!!!
No way. We have a process for amending it if need be. What we really need is for Federal politicians including the President to stop stretching it beyond recognition. Federal government has their fingers into too many places they don't belong.
1.Eliminate the Electoral College
2. Term Limits for Congress – two six year terms in Senate, and four three year terms in the House
3. Campaigns for Federal Office no longer than six months (2 months for primary, 4 months for General Election), and campaign funding may ONLY come from a fund created by assessing each taxpayer $5.00 / year (1/3 of fund divided equally among primarry candidates, 2/3 divided equally among General Election candidates.
Holy Jesus, I thought I was the only sane person in this country. It is WAY over time to update the constitution. Im glad to see a news outlet having what it takes to even bring up this topic.
You must be mentally retarded. The Bill of Rights provide a foundation, a basic framework for human rights in America. You contradicted yourself by saying that it needs re-written, then saying that you were surprised a news media outlet had the courage to say the Constitution needed a rewrite. Read the document in question, then think about what you said before you go running your mouth. It's ironic that the only amendment that has come under fire is the 2nd amendment, when it is meant to keep the government from becoming a totalitarian state. In a few minor instances, it actually has. See the battle of Athens, TN in 1947, or the Rockwell massacre. Both instances have happened within the last 100 years, and both are simply highlights. There are even instances in the 1990's where the government has attempted a forced doctrine on citizens, where the only think preventing that is the 2nd amendment.
Quit being naive, grown-ups are talking and your blithering is pointless.
The constitution gives us the right to rise up, defend ourselves from oppression. When Americans quit fighting the system, and look at forein wars and terror as an excuse for domestic oppression, then the very freedoms so many died for are nothing but dead. No we do not need a new constitution we need to understand it, and when we do then maybe America might instead change it's Flag and unread of 13 stripes we will have 39.
“Many have asked for guaranteed, good health care.”
Now, isn’t that sweet! The government shall provide guaranteed, “good” health care, as part of the new constitution. …..and a chicken in every pot.
“Iceland is home to the world's oldest parliament still in existence, the Althing, set up in 930 A.D. “
1. Iceland is a representative democracy and a parliamentary republic. The modern parliament, Alþingi (English: Althing), was founded in 1845 as an advisory body to the Danish monarch. It was widely seen as a re-establishment of the assembly founded in 930 in the Commonwealth period and suspended in 1799. Consequently, "it is arguably the world's oldest parliamentary democracy." It is also arguably the most disrupted government in history, as follows:
a. The internal struggles and civil strife of the Sturlung Era led to the signing of the Old Covenant in 1262, which brought Iceland under the Norwegian crown. Possession of Iceland passed to Denmark-Norway around 1380, when the kingdoms of Norway, Denmark and Sweden were united in the Kalmar Union.
b. Around the middle of the 16th century, King Christian III of Denmark began to impose Lutheranism on all his subjects. The last Catholic bishop in Iceland (before 1968), Jón Arason, was beheaded in 1550 along with two of his sons.
c. In 1814, following the Napoleonic Wars, Denmark-Norway was broken up into two separate kingdoms via the Treaty of Kiel. Iceland, however, remained a Danish dependency.
d. In 1874, Denmark granted Iceland a constitution and limited home rule, which was expanded in 1904.
e. On 31 December 1943, the Act of Union Agreement expired after 25 years. Beginning on 20 May 1944, Icelanders voted in a four-day plebiscite on whether to terminate the personal union with the King of Denmark and establish a republic. The vote was 97% in favor of ending the union and 95% in favor of the new republican constitution. Iceland formally became a republic on 17 June 1944, with Sveinn Björnsson as the first President.
“The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic….”
The structure of the US Senate is intentionally undemocratic, giving each State an equal standing in the Senate.
“I'm just suggesting we talk about a few revisions.”
……..And I’m just suggesting you get a good book on US History and the Constitution and maybe learn something, instead of proposing the preposterous.
“And if we were to revise the U.S. Constitution, what would be the three amendments you would put in?”
1. Fareed Zakaria must go to college and attain a grade of B or better in U.S. History.
2. Full freedom of the press, but individual reporters, commentators, and pundits therefrom shall be placed in stocks in a public square and exposed to the mob, if they write or expound an idea that threatens the Republic.
3. The Second Amendment shall be revised to read, “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No way!”
I'm not sure what you intended with your point regarding the 2nd amendment, but I feel I should remind you that it is intended as a check and balance measure against the government should it become corrupt and authoritarian. The United States government was until 1918, a populist minded body. The point of the second amendment is to allow a violent change of government, if necessary, by the people themselves against the government at hand. I know this might not seem relevant in today's world, but look at North Africa and the middle east. If Syria had something similar to the 2nd amendment, do you think they would be fighting such an oppressive regime for as long as they have been? The middle east in the 1950's was as Europe is today; with a few areas experiencing turmoil and violence, but for the most part peaceful. Today that same area is regarded as the most dangerous place in the world.
I can only remember the preamble of the Constitution if I sing it, according to the tune used in Schoolhouse Rock.
I think it would benefit everyone if that score were officially appended as the 28th amendment.
Sorry, but I wouldn't let today's politicians from either side within 20 miles of the Constitution if it were up to me. Besides, it doesn't need updating; it needs to be replaced completely.
An excellent idea, maybe too advanced and progressive for small men and women. It would be an opportunitiy to clear up silly concepts like ELECTORAL COLLEGE, and get back to one vote per person. It would be a chance to advance our civilization, to design it from the ground up, using the knowledge and technology and the foundation of demcracy which has served so well for so long. It could be a new era, taking the best ideas and making them better.
But can we stop obsessing about sexting and what Lady Gaga is wearing long enough to have that discussion? I DOUBT IT!
Rather than re-write the Constitution, we should:
1) Outlaw lobbying – period
2) Outlaw campaign donations of any kind (all candidates will have the same air time, and public campaign funding, which will allow people other than just the rich to run for office)
3) Install term limits for EVERYONE
4) Provide the same health care for those in Congress that we get in our jobs (no better, no worse)
5) Do away with the IRS, and go to a Fair Tax system
6) Make it illegal for any Congressman to take a job with any Corporation within 10 years of leaving office. (That will take care of undue Corporate meddling in our lives).
I could go on and on, but this is a good start towards ending partisanship, and fear mongering, and hopefully get us back on track to being the great country we used to be.
Ruby Red
Ruby Red, you took the words right out of my mouth! Excellent post and great suggestions.
There's too much ugly in our nation right now to consider re-writing the constitution. Many people would probably end up losing their rights, even to vote. Slavery might come back.
a presidential electoral vote by house district [winner of the district gets 1 vote ] [winner of the state get 2 votes] would not have changed the results of any recent election. just try to imagine the probability of voter fraud if the national popular vote were the sole determining factor. fraud is an issue even with the current system.
The US Congress has more urgent tasks to accomplish and can't even find ways to compromise and move forward on pressing budget issues. Revising the Constitution is a task far beyond the capabilities of our current Congressional leadership.
Mostly what I think the Constitution needs is clarification. Over the years volumes worth of legalize has been written to circumvent the plain language of the Constitution. For instance, something as plain as "the right of the people peaceable to assemble" has been ignored and we now haul people off to jail in certain circumstances if they don't have a "permit" to assemble. I'm sorry, but no "permit" is required. The Constitution is the only permit you need, yet laws exist that require you to have a government approved permit to assemble.
We need the plain language of the Constitution, but we also need an additional set of binding statements of intent. We need our Representatives to do what the Supreme Court has done in many cases, which is look at a wealth of historical documents and determine what the intent of the law was. I don't think the Supreme Court should be radically altered, but I don't think 9 people should determine the intent of a law passed by Congress. Congress needs to clarify intent. There are 535 people (our Representatives) who need to define that.
They need to go down the list and define just what "Necessary and Proper" means. Its not that we need to rewrite it, but we do need to look at Supreme Court interpretations of such phrases from the Constitution and ask ourselves if that intent has been circumvented or interpreted too broadly and thus given too much latitude to the Federal Government.
Call it a binding supplement to the Constitution. Something the Supreme Court would be required to consider before all other means of interpretation. When the Constitution talks about Congress having the power to regulate interstate commerce, I think a supplemental statement of intent need to be appended to it that defines in a little more detail the extent of those powers. Did the regulation of interstate commerce really mean the Federal Government can control gun ownership if a gun was sold across state lines? Was that what interstate commerce meant? Things like that need to be resharpened and made clear. We need to look at the Clauses, we need to look at how they have been interpreted, we need to look at the ramifications of those interpretations and ask ourselves if that's what we intended.
Overall, the whole thing stays intact and they only get to clarify. They don't have to power to pen all kinds of new power for themselves. I would also make sure all debate was public and that State chosen representatives were sequestered during debate (much like a jury). You would have to lock them in a fishbowl for months until they hammered out something to be ratified by the states. We get to look in, but they don't get to look out. We get to watch, but they don't get to talk to lobbyists. You would have to lock them in a self-contained compound with a one-way mirror on it.
The Declaration of Independence states the framers intentions....
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
If and when the constitution is no longer relevant, it is our DUTY to alter or abolish it.
Don't be daft, Fareed. Of course we shouldn't CROWDSOURCE the CONSTITUTION. The time has not yet come for government of, by, and for the Internet lunatic fringe, which is primarily what would show up for such an exercise. We'd end up with an amendment mandating tinfoil hats.
Its funny how conservatives want government out of our lives but when it comes to gay marriage or other "controversial" issues, they can't wait for government to step in.
TOTAL HYPOCRITES
It's been time for a re-write for some time. We are living by a set of laws that have basically been unchanged for ~230 years. Sure things have been added, but overall the document has remained unchanged. It was written for a different era and I feel in no way represents today's world. We have so much now that did not exist back in the 1700's. Also the fact it has to be "interpreted" alone should scream it's time for a rewrite in today's English. Use the existing document as an example naturally, but lets lose some of the dead wood that is in there from 200+ years of change.
We should worry about constitution when the government truly follows it...Govt is not run by the elected politicians but it is run by the lobbyists of private companies who decide what country want and what govt should do...So for now dont worry about the constitution and let it rest in peace.
From the comments I have managed to read I think it best to remember what the Constitution is and what it is not. it's the foundation and framework on which we were to build and govern our Democracy not the laws of it. It is how the Government is to be organized and the boundries in which the laws passed are to adhere to. If there is any aspect of the Union which should be looked at, perhaps it is the two centuries of the laws passed, the precendences that have been handed down based on the interpretation of some one at that moment in time to the point where laws contridict and their meaning and purpose have been lost and used to further the anbitions of others. for all the woes discussed, corporate greed, crooked politicians, etc. these accusations have been as much a part of the National debate from the begining as the Constitution itself.
I do not think it was an accident or artistic choice that the largest words on those pages displayed in the National Archive are We The People. it is to remind Americans that they are the ones who will decide it's fate.
I agree with this idea... Infact, let's revise our own Constitution and instead of having the freedom of expression, religion and media, we'll have an amendment that specifically forbids religious fanaticism, and instead of having a free media has a regulated, unbiased media. CNN will go out of business as soon as it's passed! You know they would eliminate the 2nd amendment, so why not? If you're willing to trash one right for another, you need to be willing to make extreme sacrifices when the amendment you are abolishing is the one that is meant as a check and balance measure against the state.
Updating to reflect modern times is probably important. A lot has changed in the last 100 years alone. Here's are two things I might change:
1) Truth Amendment – All elected officials while holding public office would be required to be considered under oath to tell the truth as long as they are serving – no matter the environment they are in. In other words a Senator could not go on a news network and speak in hyperbole about a bill but would have to stick to the facts. This amendment would also allow a series of penalties if elected officials either exaggerated or out right lied about the contents of a bill, law or government policy.
2) Voting day a national holiday (not sure if this would need to be in the constitution). We need higher voter turnout. We also need an additional option – NONE OF THE ABOVE and a threshold should exist for None of the Above which would require a new election (say if none of the above won the election a new election would be called)
HAHA truth amendment. If that was added, every politician would be ousted.
FZ is a political hack that is so left wing his propaganda escapes few. We have a process. That process has worked for 250 flippin' years. Just because the inept follow the musings of incompetent "news" people like Zakaria. He obviously has a bias for the left and feels people like himself know what's better for individuals then the individual does. And CNN keeps people like this hack on the TV to help propagate the propaganda machine for the Democrat party. What a joke.
Greg, Zakaria has twice your IQ, five times your education, and he has read 100 times as many books as you have. He's smarter than me too. You can't brush this off by calling a smart guy dumb and playing the tired old "Liberal Media" card again.
BS. what's the good of having a Constitution any way when REPUBLICANS the scourge of the land block and obstruct and try to interpert the Constitution they way they want not the way it is written.
Now is not the time to re-write the Constitution.
1. We have five Republican Party hacks making up the majority on the Supreme Court. We do not want this court making the defining rulings on a new Constitution.
2. Conservatism is too powerful. Conservatives will call out the crazies and fill the streets with chanting protestors demanding that the government accommodate all the demands of global corporations.
3. Conservatives will be able to block any sensible provision and we will be dealing with the Devil like we are right now. They will permit social security only if medicare is made unconstitutional. They will allow public education as long as there are no child health programs.
4. Every Corporate lobbyist in Washington will be bribing those who author the new Constitution to twist it this way or that way. In the end, we will have a 10,000 page constitution that has an amendment guaranteeing the rights of corporations in every industry to be free from regulation.
We need a new Constitution, but now is not the time. It can only be done after Conservatism has been destroyed as a political force.
I only went through the first fourth of so of the comments before I ran out of time. I'm amazed how well the commenters seem to know the constitution! Good work!
As to the original article, I had the same misunderstanding of the role of the senate and the distinction between democracy and republic when I was young. I wouldn't call the author, Fareed Zakaria, names other than nieve, uninformed, and prone to accept simplistic answers.
.
But as to the question that he intended to lieave as a discussion starter - what would I change?
I'd repeal the 15th and 16 admendments.
I'd require that any requirement of a treaty that conflicts with the constitution requires a constitutional amendment rather than a simple approval of congress.
And, just for fun, I'd make a ONE TERM LIMIT for the House of Representitives, so that there is a constant flow of new people who bring new voices to DC and then bring experience back to their home states.
One thing that has to be remembered. No matter how people want to rewrite the Constitution, the only way it can be done is each provision has to be approved by 2/3 or maybe 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. And with the way this country is divided I doubt if they would come of that much of an agreement. I think the first thing they should do is REWRITE THE OUT DATED SENATE RULES. There should be a majority rule. There should not be allowed ONE PERSON to block any thing. There should be no filbusters. The senate should be allowed to run smoothly like the House does. If they had those rules during Obama's first two years in office a heck of a lot of good bills would have passed instead of being blocked. And Judges and person for departments would have been appointed. The republicans have blocked and obstructed every thing they could to make it look bad for Democrats. If I were a Democrat in office and if the republicans had a majority in the senate I would put a hold on every single solitary they ever did. And then filbuster so not a single bill could come to the floor. PAY BACK IS H**L.
Trying to compare the US to Iceland is frankly ridiculous. Iceland has a population smaller than Cleveland, so it makes sense to have a purely democratic process such as the one described. Try that in the US, you will fail horribly. And one of the main reasons is that most Americans don't even know what is in the current US Constitution or why it's there.
And I'm afraid (not just trying to be hostile here, just stating fact) the author is a perfect example. There is a very good reason the electoral college and US Senate work the way they do (and btw, revisions to the Constitution work in a very similar fashion). Yes, it is not democratic in the sense the author described (a 'direct' or 'pure' democracy). But that's because the United States was never set up as a pure democracy, it is a federal republic (or to be perfectly correct, it started as a confederacy and became a federal republic). This is the United STATES of America- States' rights and governments are still a very important and powerful element of government, and will be for the foreseeable future.
The Constitution is the third finest public document ever written, after the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. While it can be argued that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of silly and antiquated laws that should be repealed, the Constitution is too sacred a document to be torn to shreds by political ideologues or the great unwashed and increasingly stupid masses. I would not be willing to tamper with it in any way and there is NO person on earth that I would trust to do so. Leave it alone.
Changes I would suggest:
Election reform. No campaign finances from corporations, or from individuals who were re-reimbursed, rewarded, or otherwise compensated by a corporation for supporting specific or multiple candidates.
What part needs to be tossed.?.... Oh I know any and everything pretaining to the Christian God...Now what would this piece of muslim work like to see added.. let me guess... sharia..
Nothing scares me more than the idea of rewriting the Constitution via Twitter or Facebook input. I wouldn't even want our current representatives in Congress to do. All you need to do is look at many of the comments on this board to see why. Most people who have commented on this thread have never bothered to read or understand the Constitution, so they have no idea why it was written as it was, yet they believe they are qualified to offer their input on how to revise it.
Our nation was never intended to be a democracy, it was intended to be a republic. The people are fickle, so the government was designed to insulate the government from the changing whims of the people so that policy would be more stable and informed. The Senate was originally appointed by the states and the president was never intended to be elected by popular vote. The real power of the nation was meant to be with the states, who elected the president via the electoral college and appointed senators. The people still had a voice, but it was expressed directly only through the House of Representatives by popular vote.
Before you offer your input, try reading the Federalist Papers so you at least have an idea why the government was set up the way it was in the first place.
But what if the vast majority of the US wants to revise the Constitution through social networking? Your view would end up in the minority who would have no say in the matter because the US is driven by the principle of "majority rules" even though there are "minority rights". Who are you to stand in the way should the majority go ahead with this?
Of course, if the majority decides not to do that, then you're ok.
Last time I checked, Benjamin Franklin once proposed (in regards to the formation of the Constitution) that instead of having a single president taking command, there should be a group of elected council members taking its place and they would do their duties without any pay. The idea behind this was that Benjamin Franklin wanted the elected council members to perform their duties out of honor rather than for the pursuit of money. Unfortunately, the idea was shot down by the rest of the founding fathers. They felt that such a position would more than likely require someone who is so rich that they don't need to be paid. Of course, that was back then.
Today, we still have one US President who is currently paid $400,000/yr. That is one hek of a salary to have and it's no wonder many candidates want that position. Unfortunately, with the added bonus of "executive privileges" and expenses covered by tax-payer dollars, this attracts the wrong kind of candidates (the sort that are greedy and willing to lie for it).
Granted, we can't put in a council as that may complicate the election process, but Benjamin Franklin may have had the right idea about getting rid of the pay. If the position of POTUS didn't include pay nor executive privileges (riding that pretty plane or having luxury dinners, etc. at tax-payer expense) then the number of candidates applying would more than likely dwindle to the few who are willing to do it for just the honor of it all.
Or we could just take away the executive privileges and force all political leaders (POTUS, Congress, and Supreme Court) to pay for their own luxuries (all of them NON-tax-deductable).
Please God...I know our government isn't perfect, but to rewrite it? I don't know what country Fareed hails from originally, but I do think that his little idea exemplifies just why the founders did not want foriegners to hold the title of President of the United States. Let Iceland do what it wants. If Fareed likes Iceland so much mabey he should look into moving there. If the constitution is ever scraped then the states should have the option to secede from the union, as the contract between the federal government and the states would be null and void. I certainally don't want to see our country turn into a confederacy or something else.
Clearly CNN is stooping to attention grabbing headlines to compensate for the slumping ratings.
This is one of the most nonsensical articles I have ever had the displeasure or reading.
Geoff, I think Zakaria is a lot smarter than you, knows a lot more than you, and you can't understand the points he is trying to make. All you know is the basic Conservative Propaganda points that can be written on an index card.
Yup....here's my suggestion: Abolish one of the most destructive things ever to come down the pike.....religion.
How cute. Newer is always better. Let's get rid of this "G_D piece of paper" and fill it with more convenient, fun ways for despots to consolidate power. Then we can finally, actually blame ourselves for our own misfortune and not have any kind ancient wisdom or tradition to control the egomaniacs who get into politics. On the other hand, if we did rewrite the constitution, it would be a perfect excuse for internal upheaval, which might result in routing the globalist cabal that prevails in America today.
the constitution is fine, it set up a bicameral legislature, one represents population and one gives equal representation to all states. it set up 3 separate branches of government in the judiciary, the executive and the legislative branch. it outlines, qualifications, powers, and non powers of each branch. It left itself opened to be changed when needed. Great document and the writer of this article needs to go read this constitution.
Want to change the constitution? Pretty simple....
MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY
Instant constitution change!!!
Sir Craig wrote: "Nebraska has a unicameral that seems to work just fine, without the need for a senate chamber." Are you kidding? As a 5th-generation Nebraskan, our part-time "legislature" is an embarrassment to me and most other Nebraskans I know. It just doesn't work. I'm going to assume you are not from Nebraska...
The Constitution may need a slight update but there is not a single human being in Washington D.C. I would trust to babysit a copy of the Constitution much less change any part of it. If you change it, you run the real risk of ruining the intent. The spirit of the Constitution is still the same. We should leave it alone. We don't need more laws or different laws, we can't enforce all the ones we already have. The Constitution is the ground workings of our Nation and our personal freedoms. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!
I would make the following changes:
1) The outlawing of the following: (A) Corporate donations to any and all political campaigns - all campaign contributions must come from private citizens, NOT corporate bodies (B) The 2-party system. Washington HIMSELF warned against the dangers of political parties and a 2-party system gives us merely the ILLUSION of Democracy. By dissolving both the Democrat AND Republican parties, smaller parties, closer to the People's Needs, could better represent the interests of the greatest number of people rather than the interests of those with the greatest means.
2) The Complete Abolition of the Electoral College.
3) STRICT 2-term limits on all elected Federal Positions.
I am open to the idea of re-evaluating the Constitution. After all, the premise of the American system of government is that government is ultimately a creation of, and thus responsible to, "the people." It stands to reason that "the people" should be able to change the manner in which they are governed, should they so choose. However I say this with one caveat: please God spare us from a Twitter Constitution. Government by hashtag is truly a birdbrained idea.
Your TV is thinking for you.
One need not look any further than this quote from the article to understand the ignorance of the guy who wrote it:
The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.
BUD, the framers KNEW that is EXACTLY what they were doing. Clue: They did it on purpose! If you want to see more of the "one man, one vote" thing (should that be one person?), look at the HOUSE.
YES!! OF COURSE!!
Let's DEFINITELY rely on the people who spend most of their time "tweeting" and "FB-ing" to help REWRITE the U.S. CONSTITUTION!!
And maybe Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen and the Kardashians can help out, too!!!!
TREASON, SIR! TREASON! What is WRONG with you people?! This is the United States Constitution we are talking about, not some outdated menu that no longer reflects the meal of the day! Without this singular document, none of you would enjoy half of the freedoms you enjoy today, nor indeed would even know what the word "freedom" entails! You are all socialist ingrates who are utterly and disgustingly ignorant of the miracle the Constitution represents. You are all fools, complete, total fools, who would cut their own noses off to spite their face! If you want free education and health care, then Move to Finland and mooch off their system. Don't try to conform the Constitution to your stupid "ideals". Rather, move to China, or Russia, or any of the other socialist arenas flailing about in the world today. You represent the most digusting form of Tyrrany by the Mahority, and if you don't understand the outrageous danger that represents, then I suggest you read Alexis de Tocqueville's, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America.
It should be changed to WE THE BILLIONAIRES since the wealthiest 1% hold 40% of the nation's wealth. I did read the Constitution for the first time last year. It is the most vague, outdated heap of tripe I've laid eyes on, and it certainly doesn't reflect how our nation is being run today.
The U.S. Constitution is a masterpiece – that should first be adhered to and defended rather than exploited – before being "revised" to suit the whims of the day.
The reasons Constitutions exist is to ENSURE the continuing presence of values that RESIST whim or convenience.
if you do not believe in our constitution go back to india you came here for the things that the constitution promises you. And anyone else who does not believe in or has a problem with what the constitution promises an American then get out of America. Shame on you for using your position in global media to even put the idea in ANYONES mind.
He is just as American as you are; He's a citizen.
The problem with reopening the constitution is that every special interest group (Unions, corporations, etc) will see it as an unprecedented opportunity to enshrine their agenda. To do it rationally, one needs to step back from current crises, and look at what long-term problems have evolved that the framers were ignorant of... and fix those. My picks: 1) A limit on taxation (both individual and corporate); 2) meaningful term limits on all congressional representatives.... we want statesman, not career politicians; 3) Presidential authority for line-item vetoes (or something similar, to limit the pork; 4) Better definition on the limits of federal authority.....
I believe that one of the biggest inhibitors of progress in our country is an outdated political system. It's not a sound republic when large corporations and the super-wealthy have more influence than the majority of the population. The problem with politics is politics. We need to get back to a system where policy is more driven by the people for whom it was created. We are a nation divided by our political system, and any ounce of progress is stalled by the other side. There is no cooperation, and each side believes their ideas are the only way. Here are my three amendments:
28-Abolish the Electoral College. Let the people truly decide.
29-Prohibit political parties. Let people vote for an individual platform instead of being blinded by party agendas. George Washington warned against them. Look where we've been the past decade.
30-Limit the amount of influence that large corporations/lobbyists/large donors can have on the political process.
If we can get back to basics and the the people of America have a voice, then we will be a lot better off.
What's the point of creating a new one? So our legislatures can ignore that one too? Here's a better idea: Just enforce the one we've got.
You want to take inputs to a new constitution from people who took out home loans that they had no chance of repaying?!! Ditto for people who bought multiple new cars/rec vehicles, without longterm plan to pay for them?!! That is the scariest idea I have ever heard!! Reference the Iceland initiative, remember their "citizens" recently voted down a proposition that would have required their government to repay a legitimate loan they received from Great Britain! The citizens of Iceland should definitely not be used as an example of where the US should be headed – my opinion, of course.
Its time for you Fareed Zakaria to return to that dirt floor country you crawled out of, and go back to praying to your Monkey, Rats, Cows, and Elephant Gods!!
Change the Constitution???—There goes the neighborhood!!!
Oh, God, please no! Our Politicians are not honest and do not represent the American People..
We can't even pass any amendments – what makes anyone think we could rewrite the entire constitution, without messing it up badly? Who, exactly, would rewrite it? Consider that politicians today are overwhelming owned by corporate concerns. Corporate bosses would be more than happy to write away all of our civil rights, making us property or chatell of the corporations.
Think, before you speak, people. And, be careful what you wish for – you may just get it!
Iceland – will NEVER be the United States – so what they do with THEIR Constitution is all fine and dandy.
Leave the US Constitution – ALONE !!!
(and I would be called "a liberal" by some – but never about THIS !!)
I hate to break this to you, buddy. The US Constitution is considered by everyone as a living, breathing document (in the sense that it adapts). In fact, our founding fathers would be offended if the constitution was never amended during the past 200+ years.
In other words, without updating [some call this "amending"] the US constitution, black people would still be slaves, women would never have been able to vote, the first national bank would never have happened (which helped pay down the debt that fledgling America had) position of US Vice President would still be worth no more than a bucket of spit.
Point taken – Jessy – but the kind of "changes" which would reflect the now chaotic and diverse population of the United States today – would take the Constitution far afield from what the founding fathers had in mind when they made it the "living" adaptable document you reference. Rather than the wholesale changes reflecting all of its citizens' input as Iceland is apparently willing to do, any changes to the US Constitution must be approached on one for all and all for one otherwise it will fragment the country politically and geographically.
Well, I hope you brought something to entertain yourself with, Grrr82u2, because (unlike Iceland's 320,000 citizens) the United States has over 300 million people and that means a veeeeerryyyyyy loooooooong tiiiiiiiime to amend the constitution in the manner that Iceland is doing it (asking its citizens directly rather than debating it with its elected leaders). Actually, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. After all, I can't trust our elected leadership any longer.
I would not trust any politician in this day and age to update the Constitution. If we ever get to a happier place where Statesmen are the rule then maybe but not now with the our back-biting, power hungry, sniping, snarky, polarized politicians. I can't even imagine the lobbying that big businesses would undertake to get their biases in the document. ABSOLUTELY NO!
We can always update the Constitution, just takes tons of people to do it. If Zakaria really means, "Is it time to update the Bill of Rights?", then the chances of that happening are slim and none.
1. A "substantive due process" or "right to privacy" amendment that would enshrine that Supreme Court-created legal doctrine explicitly in the Constitution, stating that there are "substantive" aspects to the rights of life, liberty, and property, including a strong liberty interest in reproductive rights, freedom from invasion of privacy in our bedrooms, and other Supreme Court-created rights that are constantly being jeopardized by which way the political winds are blowing.
2. A "term limit" amendment for Supreme Court justices – one 16 year term at the end of which the President in office can re-appoint for a second 16 year term or not but in no case should a justice sit for more than 32 years on the court – if they're going to act like partisan hacks we should treat them as such – as it is, they are truly an "imperial judiciary" despite that fact that at least one of them appears to have learned everything he knows about the law from the nuns who wrapped his knuckles in grade school.
3. Please God do away with the Electoral College – surely there can be a more antiquated, utterly undemocratic way of electing our presidents.
Why dont we just put like 8-10 new Constitution items on the Menu at McDonalds and let American's buy them....maybe we can buy ourself out of national debt and get a happy meal toy suprise on the side....
This "proposal" is among several circulated by liberal "correspondents" in the last few days. It is a part of prep for elections where these "journalist" are tasked with flooding discussion with irrelevant issues. Anything to take the focus away from the poor performance (on a historical scale) of current administration on all issues, foreign and domestic.
Otherwise, how do you explain that within just a couple of days Kristof of The New York Times has a bright idea to take example of military on how to run the country and this genius decides to rewrite the constitution (not amend it, mind you). In both examples they know that there will be many geniuses trying their best on the topic. I guess it is an exercise in counting idiots they can rely upon.
All these "journalists" do is to look for combinations of words that can steer discussion away from real issues before us. Constitutional changes take time and their effect on real life are long delayed. We will have to deal with current problems under current constitution and the best we can do is not to elect people without any experience in real life. People who cling to their role as politicians and vote "present" since they have nothing else useful to offer.
Update the US Constitution? It's called AMMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.
How about the country follow its own laws for once?
The author, Fareed Zakaria, needs to at least read the constitution because it's obvious he doesn't know the facts. He doesn't seem to know the difference between the House and the Senate.
Zakaria needs to read the constitution before he tries to write about it.
On a side note: Ron Paul for 2012 – the only candidate who actually respects the law instead of villifying our country's constitution.
Preamble
Whereas the Free Market is a fair market, which dispenses monetary justice across the land in conformity to God's unquestionable laws of Economics, We, the Assembled Conservative Leadership of America, do hereby Endorse, Sanctify, and Declare this the Real Constitution of our Nation.
Article the First
Because the Market gives people only what they deserve, the Wealthy therefore deserve the wealth that the Free Market has bestowed upon them. May God bless the USA and her wealthy citizens.
Article the Second
Because the Market gives people only what they deserve, those who are not fabulously wealthy have obviously chosen not to be fabulously wealthy due to weakness of character or limited ability.
Article the Third
Because the Market gives people only what they deserve, the poor deserve their poverty - but not sympathy or compassion. Let them eat cake.
Article the Fourth
If you choose not to be a corporate workaholic, neglectful of your family, then screw you. If you have an autistic child, then screw you. If you have a chronic disease, then screw you. If you are the child of an illegal immigrant, then screw you. If you're old and sick, then screw you. You got only what you deserved because that’s the way things work. Screw you.
Article the Fifth
There is no provision for changing or amending this Constitution. This Constitution was pronounced by Jesus on the Mount. It is what America's founding fathers really meant to write when they copied it from the Bible. It is what Adam Smith prophesied. If you don’t like this Constitution, then screw you.
Bill of Rights
1. You have the right to pursue happiness by inventing a new consumer product, founding your own corporation, running up the stock price, underpaying your employees, bribing government officials who get in your way, selling out to a much larger corporation, and thereby becoming fabulously wealthy. God bless you.
2. You have the right to become vastly wealthier if you are already fabulously wealthy. No law can deny you this right and no person or government can stand in your way. Any way you can get money is a legal way to get money. God bless you.
3. You have the right to search for another employer if you don’t like your job.
4. You have the right to purchase a different product in the future if you don’t like the one you just bought.
5. If you're not happy with these rights, then screw you. You have no other rights.
how officiously retardud
I am not opposed to revising the Constitution. The document was created and immediately revised with the Bill of Rights to ensure passage. So it's part of our democratic process to amend it. But I'm hesitant concerning one major issue in this article. To the issue of only two Senators from each state... Well, when we were formed we wanted to ensure that there was equal representation. So in the House of Representatives it's based on population. But the Senate was constructed as a way to ensure that states with a lesser amount of population were heard. Each state has an equal voice. We are a democratic republic. We must allow members of each state to have an equal voice. If not, then all one must do is target high centers of population to get anything passed. That leaves those in the Midwest or other smaller centers of population virtually voiceless. So revising the Constitution... I have no problems with that. But revising it to a degree that significantly alters the guiding principles of our nation... I have some reservations.
To show how out of touch Mr. Zakaria is with the good ol US of A.
1. Most americans would not be so arrogant to assume another country (Iceland) lacks pride in its own constitution or democratic traditions.
2. We do revere the US constitution. That includes the provisions therein that allow us to amend it. If the US Supreme Court does not rule the individual mandate to purchase health insurance unconstitutional, or the it isn't repealed by vote, you can be certain there will be an attempt to amend the US constitution.
3. His ignorance is shown by declaring the electoral college "highly undemocratic". Mr. Zakaria forgets that the form of government in the US is a Republic. It is a "representative democracy" not a pure democracy.
4. Our bicameral system (Senate and Congress) was designed, in part, to prevent the tyranny of the majority that could occur with a representative system based purely on population.
5. There are practical issues that make a national vote for president problematic. A. If 2000 was such a disaster in one state (Florida), can you imagine a nation wide recount for a close presidential election? (bonanza for lawyers!!!!) B. No one would put campaign resources in smaller states or rural areas at all if the president were determined by national popular vote. This leads to.. C. The president would push for spending by congress to be allocated toward the large population centers in hopes of garnering the most votes per dollar spent. D. I've often considered electoral votes being allocated by congressional district, but could you imagine how much more district gerrymandering would exist in state houses vs. what exists today?
A little research and thought wouldn't hurt Mr. Zakaria
OOOH! Would I be able to "like" and amendment on my Facepage?!
I think it is a great idea. There just seems to be to many flaws. I think with the Islamic issues nations are facing and the protections given to a religion – religion itself needs to be redefined. You can't have an ideology spreading throughout a country who has governing, military, financial, legal, and religious aspects effecting the country's Constitution. Pushing to let 3rd world countries immigrants come to our countries an instill Sharia Law, build a monument to Islam by GZ, and attempt to INSTILL THEIR WAY OF LIFE ON A COUNTRY THAT OPENED THEIR DOORS TO THEM? Are you kidding me? You come to America, work your butt off, and get ahead and get away from repression. You don't come to America to BRING your repressive religion over and then push then envelope until you hit the boiling point. IN SUM WE NEED A BETTER DEFINITION OF RELIGION. You can practice whatever you want but don't start pushing your barbaric governing tactics in our face.
Talking about Christianity, eh?
I would say – let's not get distracted and simply consider this brainstorming. What 3 changes, additions etc. would you like to introduce. Let's stick to that.
So:
1 – Free health care for US citizens (only);
2 – Free education for US
Iskander – I sure hope you are joking, or a troll. if you are indeed serious, then you are the problem. "free" is such a misnomer that even you should understand that it isn't really "free" – somebody has to pay for it.
I know, your solution is to raise taxes on those "evil" corporations and anyone making more than a pre-determined amount of money. Talk about class warfare!!
My 3 recommendations are as follows:
1. End tax loopholes and ALL CORP. Subsidies. Companies are privately owned for a reason, even if they are publicly traded their owners are the share holders. No body(entity) from small shops to large world wide corporations should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes. If people are required to pay taxes no matter what your income level is, then the corporations that make money here should have to pay them as well. It is a privilage to do business in a fair society such as the US not a right or a burden. True we have our share of issues, but we are for the most part a country without dictators.
2. End the Wars: The wars on education, poverty, and drugs have all failed. In a society where we pride ourselves on freedom, we are in fact not free to do to our own bodies as we see fit. I am not an advocate of heavy drug use however if I so choose to smoke pot, eat shrooms, or even do crack for that matter, it is a medical issue. That does not make me a criminal and it infringes more of a burden on tax payers who are left to pay the bills for jailing non-violent people. Also the money could be used to better educate our people as our current education system is a joke. Our lack of funding for education is a disgrace. It results in more people being unable to adquately find a decent job in order to upgrade their families out of poverty. Poverty is a result of lack of education, know how to get yourself and your family out of it. We spend more money giving large companies tax breaks and subsidies than we spend on improving the quality of lives for our own citizens. Education is the only way to improve our society.
3. Healthcare is a right not an option. How can we call our nation the best in the world when we have people who literally can't afford to get sick? Most of our citizens are 1 illness away from poverty and we should not have to choose between paying for healthcare or paying our bills or food. Our doctors are the best in the world not because of their pay but because of our standards of higher education for them. We make sure in this country that before you can call yourself DR., you have been tested and certified time and time again, and continued certification once you've finished all that. Resulting in better care for our citizens, but it should not only be better care for our wealthy citizens, it should be for all. The founding fathers believed that "All men are created equal" and in "equal treatment for all". Shouldn't that be for medical care as well? These are just my 2cents. I may not have the best solution, but at least it will make lives more easier to live with us all having the same basics of what it means to be an American Citizen. PS.
4. Income tax should be abolished for any person making under 50k per year and should start at 10% for each 20k afterwards. With a max of 25% for the top income earners. It's been proven in our history that when people have more money to spend our economy thrives. Companies can hire more workers because demand will be dramatically increased thus they will need more workers to fufill the supply. And companies fail when you give them money to stay afloat while they lose sales. Only 2 possible outcomes, either the govt will go broke and only a few co's will have all the money. Or the co's will go broke with the govt as well and the people will be left with nothing.
Tony – I won't even comment on your other suggestions except to say that they are pie-in-the-sky, but not practical, nor sustainable.
As far as your last suggestion – so what's to control every person from getting jobs making less than $50K / year, and working under the table? If I'm a CEO of a company, I'll just pay myself $49,999 / year, thus, according to your "genius" solution – no taxes for me!!
How about this – how about abolishing the current income tax system entirely and implementing a very simple idea – a consumption based system? Thus, those who have more to spend will naturally consume more – a person with less money might buy a Yugo, whereas a person with more money might buy a Ferrari, thus this system takes care of itself – look up "fair tax" and get an idea of a very similar system.
Mr. Zakaria,
You write: "And let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary work, one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history. One amazing testament to it is the mere fact that it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years."
But you seem to have no clue what the greatness of the US Constitution is! Its greatness lies not in its longevity, many atrocious medieval laws of the land have survived longer than that! The US Constitution’s greatness Sir, lies in its core principle – the recognition, for the first and only time in human history, of an Individual's Rights above all else; not Mob Rule, which you seem to so admire!
Don't confuse "MOB" rule with "Majority" rule. You are essentially calling everybody a MOB? No. It's time for change.
See Paul Lichlyter's comment below. I would hope you want to live in a society based on well thought out and agreed upon principles, not the whim of the moment, feel good, majority vote – which is what a democracy (rule by majority) eventually must disintegrate into in practice. Look round the world and study history if you want to understand what I mean.
I've never found this writer's articles particularly insightful, but this article is nothing short of laughable. Well done CNN. If you've ever wondered why you've been passed by other news sources, this gives you all you need to know – giving air time to clowns like this.
First, we do not live in a democracy. It is a representative republic, in part, because the founding fathers knew that the general populace was too easily swayed by the media. The notion that the Senate is undemocratic because it is not one man, one vote is either painfully uninformed or an intentional red herring.
Second, part of the genius of the Constitution is that it was built to change. If someone – like apparently the author – wants to change it, there is already a thoughtful process for how to do so. Perhaps he wants to invoke a different process because he understands that his ideas could not stand the scrutiny or win the necessary support.
Weak CNN... very weak.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States." -- I would give all I have to have just one representative "Tell it like it is." The obscenity that envelopes congress with all of the undeserved perks makes me sick to my stomach. In the beginning their job was to do service for their country, and when that was done, go back home and get a job and get to work. There is nothing that justifies serving one term and receiving lifetime benefits. Especially for the job they've done lately. Benefits should be commensurate to service at both the federal and state levels. Pay for congress should be voted on by the people. No more bundling bills. A house bill should be one bill and one bill only. No more "back room backscratching" to slide a bill in with another for someones brother-in-law in their particular state. I could go on and on about how upset I am with congress and their lack of morality. Both parties are equally guilty of the mess we're in today. No one in congress wants to face the truth about themselves and their behavior or how it reflects on the average american. Most of them have no idea how to fix this mess except to throw more money at it. Our money. Oh, and abolish the electoral college.
I am normally a Zakaria fan, but this is silliness. The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic and it should stay that way. The Electoral College works perfectly and makes each vote potentially more valuable than a nation wide common election would.
How nice for a first generation American like this author to make such a suggestion as to scrap our constitution. I have countless forefathers who died to protect what the document stands for. I have lost all respect for this author as it was certainly not is place to make such a suggestion that demonstrates a total lack of understanding of American etiquette.
Wow, what an idea. Let's have a government ran the same way American Idol is! I think some forget we are not a democracy but a Republic.
The day we update the constitution is the day I update the government. Do not underestimate the will and power of the American citizen.
Scary times!!! Considering that most of the people using facebook and twitter can't graduate from HS in four years and forget about college.
Mr. Zarkaria fundamentally misunderstands the idea of the United States Senate. The members of the Constitutional Convention made it clear that their bicameral legislature was set up to accommodate both large and small states. The House of Representatives ensures that large states have more representatives to the government, which allows them to more effectively represent their larger populations. The Senate, however, was specifically designed to make sure that the interests of every state were represented equally. That is an essential part of our governmental system, as it guarantees that smaller states are not bullied and ignored by larger states.
I also take issue with Mr. Zakaria's position that the United States was "paralyzed" in the wake of the Presidential Election of 2000. Presidents are not sworn in until January, which means that the currently serving president is still president until that time. Elections are held in November. There were nearly 3 months to sort everything out with that election, and it took nowhere near that long to certify who the actual winner of the election was. All the while, Bill Clinton remained president. The nation was in no way "paralyzed."
I do, however, agree with the assertion that the electoral college is un-democratic. While I understand its original purpose, times are very, very different. A constitutional amendment, however, would more than suffice to change that, so I disagree that we would need a new constitution to fix this issue.
Overall, I am disturbed by Mr. Zakaria's lack of knowledge regarding certain fundamental aspects of the constitution. He is in a position of influence, and a man in that sort of position can do great harm by means of his own ignorance.
The "mob rule" that you referred to is called power of the majority, one of the principles of democracy.
Murph – thank God we are not a democracy, but rather a representative republic!! Otherwise those with the loudest voices, or the biggest clubs, or the most influential media sound bytes, would win.
A true "democracy" would ensure anarchy and mob rule.
If we were seriously going to consider revising the Constitution, I would like to see some of the Congressional changes suggested here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/07/964431/-5th-of-November put in.
The Framers set up the two houses of Congress to prevent the very problem that Mr. Zakaria's suggestion would now bring to the table–so that small or less-populated states could not be subjected to the will of larger states. That protection is just as important today as it was 222 years ago. Just because NY or CA have more people than the rest of the tates does not make them better or more capable of dictating policy. A lot of people would be happy if NYC and CA fell into the ocean (as long as no one died of course). So I would take that idea and send it to the trash heap immediately. A better idea would be to curb the power of the fed. govt in may of the areas it has unconstitutionally expanded into. Bigger is not always better.
Square Grouper,
if you follow the House, you will undoubtedly notice that the Congresspeople from New York do not vote as a block, nor do the ones from California. Nowadays, the only block votes tend to be those of the political parties. Thus, the idea you seek to prevent (block voting) is present more dramatically in the Senate than the House.
Simply put, the Senate allows politlcal parties to vote en masse more effectively, because senators are less beholden to the needs of their constituents. If you think we should keep two legislative houses, fine - but don't keep one representing states. That idea no longer holds merit, just as your argument is no longer valid. It might have been true at one time that states voted as blocks, but no longer.
@Rick House
After reading about two paragraphs I was shocked that this was allowed to be published due to the authors obvious lack of knowledge on the topic he was writing about. My next step was to cruise the comments and see if people took this seriously. Low and behold you pointed out exactly what I was thinking. Well done!
We don't follow the constitution anyway, so why bother. It's an irrelevant document nowadays. If you're going to change anything how about changing how so often we ignore the guidelines that are already there.
The author bases his premise nearly entirely on the fact that technologies have advanced which is pointless—he Constitution was written about rights which are inviolate over time and technology. This is probably motivated largely by a desire to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. Not a chance Buster.
The Founding Fathers were men, not saints, and they shouldn't be deified.
1. Amend the amendment process. This may require a Constitutional Convention because currently less than 5% of the population (the number of people in the 13 smallest states) has the power to prevent an amendment from going into effect. Unless the amendment process is amended, measures that address the disproportionate power of the smallest states, including senatorial representation and the electoral college, are doomed.
2. Term limits for all federal judges including the Supreme Court and for members of Congress
3. Define person as a living, breathing human being. In other words, eliminate corporate person-hood.
It is comical how some members of congress keep a copy in there top pocket. It is as you say the greatest document regarding the founding of a republic ever written. But times have changed from the way we dress to the way provide for our family's. Sure we no longer own slaves nor do we cure sickness in the same archaic fashion. So to carry the document as the do still referring to it as gospel in it original form is ridiculous. Just as we have amended it to end slavery. We should amend it to fix modern problems for the modern society we have become. I think it is admirable to carry the constitution as founding document that speaks to the historical significance of the founding of United States of America. That is what it is history. To say that it speaks to our core values is to say slavery is part of our core values. The document should grow like our great nation has grown. We are the greatest county on earth in the history of mankind. It is comical how some members of congress keep a copy in there top pocket. It is as you say the greatest document regarding the founding of a republic ever written. But times have changed from the way we dress to the way provide for our family's. Sure we no longer own slaves nor do we cure sickness in the same archaic fashion. So to carry the document as the do still referring to it as gospel in it original form is ridiculous. Just as we have amended it to end slavery. We should amend it to fix modern problems for the modern society we have become. I think it is admirable to carry the constitution as founding document that speaks to the historical significance of the founding of United States of America. That is what it is history. To say that it speaks to our core values is to say slavery is part of our core values. The document should grow like our great nation has grown. We are the greatest county on earth in the history of mankind.
Mike – things like "how we dress" and the like are in no way related to what the Consitution is there for – to enumerate the powers of the Federal Gov, mainly by LIMITING what it can do, as well as reminding each & every one of us that we have certain rights that we were born with, and that no Gov shall infringe on those rights.
The Constitution LIMITS Gov power, it does NOT grant Gov power, and from the comments of some of these incredibly naive people, they are begging to have the Gov tell them what to do, when to do it, and for how long. As the saying goes "forgive them for they know not what they are doing"
The U.S. was never intended to be a true democracy/popular vote when it was founded. The Constitution as currently written is what makes the U.S. what it is – a constitutional republic with sovereign States united. A major revision of the Constitution would need to happen in order to go to a true democracy, and in doing so it would destroy the Republic as we know it. As a result of this, I'm sure many States would choose not to enter into the Republic due to the few big States having all the power, and those smaller States would choose to form their own Nation-States.
A fool & his facts are soon parted.
What Constitution?
The powers that be pay little head to the Constitution these days anyhow.
Anyone talking about changing the constitution wants us to turn into a socialist European country. The left has been trying to bend the constitution to fit it's agenda especially the last 3 years under this administration. No way we will support rewriting the constition.
No, we do not need a new Constitution. Our present one is quite sufficient thank you very much. I'm sure that leftists, socialists, islamists, etc, want to do away with our present one in order to give us something that is more compatible with totalitarianism, and our Bill of Rights would no doubt be reduced to "privileges", but those of us who desire freedom and liberty want our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and therefore our built in freedoms, intact.
There is already a proceedure... they're called amendments (XXVII of 'em) There is another route; Constitutional Convention; and that stands the proverbial snowball's chance in hell... besides... NOTHING would ever get past the mountain states and Alaska in the first place. I cannot see Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, N Dakota, et al, even considering giving Fairfax County, VA more power than themselves. In short... it ain't gonna happen. Someone is going to have to draft one "helluva" amendment. Good Luck!
Scrap the electoral college,move to a more representative senate structure much like that of the House, include a comprehensive equality and protection clause for memebers of minority groups especially women, lgbt, and racial minorities.
@JoshinSanDiego who said: "Scrap the electoral college,move to a more representative senate structure much like that of the House, include a comprehensive equality and protection clause for memebers of minority groups especially women, lgbt, and racial minorities."
It's funny how you want recognition/equality for citizens in the "minority" – based on race, gender, sexuality – yet you wish to scrap the Constitutional protections for the equality of State's "minorities" – citizens living in small States – that the Senate currently guarantees.
Allowing the current political class to rewrite the constitution could only result in misery and hardship for the rest of us. If you let the millionaire lawyers of today get involved and pay lip service to YouFace And MyTube, you deserve whatever crackpot slavery they throw as you. I can see it now. Publicly funded abortions. Guns for cops only. Codex Alimentarius in violent force. Cats and Dogs living together. Nah, I prefer the devil I know.
Three words: congressional term limits.
I would be overjoyed with the following changes:
1) Eliminate the Electoral College
2) Eliminate Tax Exemptions for all religions and all references to GOD out of government and judiciary, pledge of Allegiance, eliminate prayer before congressional sessions and take the bible out of courts and any swearing ceremony
3) Eliminate the Life Time term for the Supremes
No Fareed, it's not time to update anything, especially when you have written something. You are such a dope, dude. Go back wherever you came from, even if from under a local rock.
I lived in Iceland. It has 200,000 people and pretty much is awful. In no WAY should how those people draw up their constitution have any influence on changes to America's. Go back to school Zakaria, and actually learn something about Western history/culture.
In all of this there are elements of either truth and understanding or emotional reactions to percieved threats, at least to a degree. But the question that I feel is begged here is this: Should we change the Constitution or should we educate the populace on the importance of it, the intent and the content. Don't say they "should know", because obviously they don't and besides, when was the last time they had a course on Government, eighth grade "Civics"? In many cases the answer is yes. As is quoted from another very popular source, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime", would it not provide a better foundation for future decision making as a body? Further is the problem actually with the the Constitution, the Senate or the House and our government in general or is the real problem with the lack of interest, involvement and willingness of the "individual" to accept personal responsibility and liability for their own well being? Just some more questions, don't expect to change the world but it would be niice to see the worlds populace change.
Great article! The US Constitution was at best a compromise reached 200 years ago. It is high time that we revisit every line in that document and decide whether it still reflects reality. In my view there is a great deal that should be preserved – but just like the curious absence of opinions on slaves, I would amend the Constitution to prohibit corporations from any legal access to Constitutional protection as an entity. That means no more special interests – period.
Constitution encompasses time-transcending ideas like "people are created equal". You then pass laws based on these ideals like defining "people" to include cloned humans (or not) when that technology becomes available. Laws change, constitutions shouldn't be rewritten just for the sake of time.
What we need to do is apply the Constitution the way the framers intended instead of having the Federal goobermint and the Supreme Court reinterpret the words due to the altering of the meaning of many words over the years.
You are an ignorant jackass.
A MESSAGE TO CNN: FIRE THIS MORON
Is this author really serious? He is completely ignorant in his suggestions. Was he even born here?
Easy bro tell your views...
Yes, let's let the people of Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube decide what goes into our "new" constitution. That has to be the greatest idea since the Prohibition.
Why do we allow states equal say? If this nation were truly democratic, we'd allow for the "one man, one vote" to prevail any other ideal. The US is truly not democratic in the respect of allowing RI to have as much say as CA; why give states "voices" that are much more powerful than the voices of the citizens?
Zakaria: 'We the people' should have more say in the current wording of our constitution.
We the people: No we shouldn't! And you are an idiot for suggesting it.
Zakaria, you are on drugs...and not the good kind. The U.S. Constitution is the best. What is wrong with you?
Our constitution was written by very intelligent, driven people. They saw injustices under British rule and wanted to make a more idealistic state that was more in line with the new enlightenment age. I don't claim to know the intricacies of Iceland's history, but as far as I can tell, they were simply given their independence by others. They have no personal investment in their constitution so who cares if it's rewritten? Might as well.
Are you out of your freaking mind! First of all dingo, the constitution was written as it applies to human nature. That doesn't change. Sure we amend somethings but our country is still great due to our lack of changing it. To assume a change in a document in a corporacracy with international money interest paying lobbyist to influence our elected officials is pure lunacy!. If you want a revolution go try to change it. I guarantee that will happen and the same greedy people on top will suffer the same fate as in previous revolutions.
I see a lot of good replies. However the flaw in the logic is rather simple. Is democracy actually a good thing? Thomas Jefferson believed democracy to be the equivalent of mob rule. Where 51% of the people get to determine the rule of law for 100%.
In fact, the manual given out to people who wanted to be citizens of the U.S. said the same thing until about 1936 when it was updated.
The U.S. is not, and never has been a democracy. We are a "republic". If you read the declaration of independence, the constitution of the United States, and then recite the pledge of allegiance allowed one after the other, you will have said the words democracy and democratic not even one time.
In any country where it is truly "one man, one vote" the minorities get screwed. They are left to the generosity of the majority as to what rights they are given.
Thomas Jefferson was right. Democracy is mob rule.
Let's see. You suggest re-writing the U.S. Constitution and come up with the Electoral College as a fundamental reason.
As far as small state-large state, remember that this was debated by the founders. After all, it is the "United States". Small states retain power to offset the power of larger states that are represented by population in the House. Pretty equitable system.
The U.S. Constitution was not amended 27 times. The first 10 "Amendments" were the Bill of Rights. They were necessary for ratification. That leaves 17. Two other Amendments (prohibition and its repeal)cancel out one another. P
This leaves 15.
Three were enacted to correct the historical abomination of slavery. One more to create the income tax.
We have one that extends suffrage to women. One to limit the term of the President to two terms and a Presidential Succession(infirmity)Amendment.
The Constitution does not consist only of the words written in the original document and the amendments. We also must include all of the decisions of the Supreme Court.
It other words, you are a smart guy who is very ignorant on the subject you propose. Being to write well is not enough.
At least go to a law school and take at least two semesters of Constitutional Law before coming half-baked and quarter-cocked.
Delegate to the 1973 Louisiana Constitutional Convention and a redactor of the present Louisiana Constitution.
We are not Democracy we are a Republic, a Democracy is purely majority rules, a true Democracy means you can take somebody else's right away by a simple majority. Our Founding Father's set up the US as a Republic to protect freedoms. For example if this was a Democracy and the majority of voters decided rap music was bad for children it could be banned. If the government (congress) wanted to banned Rush Limbaugh because they felt he was to conservative they could do so in a Democracy by having the majority of congress voting to banned him. This cannot happen in our society because we are a republic this is a good thing. You don't have to listen to Rap Music and you don't have to listen to Rush, you can complain about either one all you want with your own free speech but they cannot be banned.
The supreme court, the US senate, the Constitution are all place holders to keep the majority from running the whole system. A Democracy would mean only the house of representatives is needed, we wouldn't need the senate or the supreme court. The other thing our Constitution does is give the minority some say with the laws that are being created. The states with the lowest population are a minority in one aspect, the Senate gives them more say. 12 or 13 states contain half the US population, the point of view of someone in the city is not the same as the point of view from someone in the farmland, but if you shut out the opinion of the farmer because he's the minority the majority could potentially pass a law that in someway effect food supply, something which the Majority would definitely need. You could even argue the Constitution is a form of affirmative action to give a boost to the minority.
I wonder what would elements of our constitution would be challenged and survive..
NO it is NOT time to "update" our constitution! We're in the mess we're in now because we've been ignoring it!
2 quick points. The problems that exist in this country are not because we haven't updated the Constitution but rather, because we've ignored the Constitution for far too long. Case in point – the last war we fought and won was World War II, which also happened to be the last constitutionally legally declared war. Every war we've fought since has not been legal under the Constitution and we haven't won one since.
Second point – if we ever were to decide to update the Constitution, Fareed Zakaria would be the last person I would want to consult. Our Constitution was written for a democratic republic, not a socialist state.
Our diversity is both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because, in fact, the American experiment continues; a curse because it makes just about every decision a painful and deliberative process. I seriously doubt that we could agree on a title for a new constitution.
This could be the dumbest editorial ever posted by CNN. See, in their infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution with the ability to accept this little known thing called an Amendment, making the Constitution a constant work in progress. I mean, really, CNN, this is grade school level knowledge. Maybe Mr. Zakaria would like to head back to the classroom for a few lesson before publishing on a topic of which he clearly has no understanding? We expect better from the editors, if nothing else!
"The flush toilet had just been invented". Well, it is about time to use it on the writings of Zakaria and the like.
Let's send Zakaria to Iceland as an American representatiive to help write the constitution using Facebook. Once Iceland becomes a superpower, he can come back.
Sorry, got interrupted – so:
2 – Free education for US citizens (only);
3 – Simplify the electoral system; This one of course would need much more details.
Still – I think these three amendments would be critical
You would need to make the tax rate 75% for free heath care and education, so it wouldn't be free.
I have little negavtive concern about the words of our Constitution or the electorial college as its defined or the balance of power that is empowered through its words.
But what has concerned me and I think has been the historical reason for the various amendments, is that our Leaders have not had the strength or conviction to live up to the words of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a document that respresents not only the Union of our States, but it represents the scarifices that were made in the Revolution, our American Civil War and wars across the globe. It represents a pledge that our States will remain united as a Republic, not through force but through consent. It represents a commitment that not only will the majority be heard in our decisions but that commitment ensuring that even the least of us will have a say, and the majority can not strip us of our rights, even when we are a single citizen.
The Constitution defends our Citizens our Citizens should defend the Constitution.... against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
"One amazing testament to it is the mere fact that it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years."
No it has not.
Why do you think there are all those 27 Amendments? These are "patches" to the original constitution.
No, they're NOT "Patches". They're testaments to human short-sightedness and stupidity. For example, the Constitution didn't need to be "patched" to abolish slavery or give women the vote. Those things should have gone without saying, based on the notion of equal rights. Also, had there never been an Amendment to instate Prohibition, there would have been no need to repeal Prohibition.
YES! Change the constitution, make it apply to modern times! That would solve so many of our problems...
What? Time to remake the constitution? What Constitution? It's just a yellowed piece of paper in a museum, it definitely isn't followed anymore and has been flushed down the political toilet years before I was born. For those of you who believe you're free and protected by it..WAKE THE F UP...idiots.
Wow, aren't you edgy and cynical.
no, enforce what we have. fix the two parts the forefathers did not see: the idea the country would not eliminate the one right they thought would keep this country solvent: the right to starve to death and the other the voters would become so corrupt they would elect a fool for president. since FDR started the elimination of that right to starve the country started sliding down hill. now we pay/feed people to reproduce and not work and vote Democrat. We need to restore the right to starve to death.
To ALL politicians: Keep your friggin' hands off my Constitution. The time would be much more wisely spent actually comprehending its meaning, but instead they spend the bulk of their time trying to subvert it.
Is they forget that "We the People" means everybody not their religion, ethnic group, majority, etc.
It always turns out that the very reasons I think the Constitution is genius are the reasons people want to change it. Wisconsin has the same Senate representation as California because this country is a union of equal states. California isn't more important than Wisconsin or Wyoming or South Carolina just because it has more people and pays more taxes.
I feel the same about the Electoral College. Presidential candidates have to come to my home state of Tennessee even though Cook County, Illinois has almost as many people as our entire state because our 11 votes matter. If Al Gore had won his home state and our 11 votes he wouldn't have needed Florida in the first place. If a popular vote system ever came into being candidates would only have to campaign in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and a couple of other states to be elected. The rest of the nation could just sit back and watch what happened... kind of like watching American Idol
OK this is just retarded. THE US can change its constitution, but in doing so would require Americans to look closer at the Federal Government (like in their ass with a fine toothed comb look- which will never haven) to look for a reason to change it. THIS will not happen because the Corporatist yes CNN your sponsors a fucking evil with the rest of main stream media dont want people asking questions they want you to buy more shit and keep eating poor diets. ANYTIME there is something going on in the world thats an "OMFG moment" the media puts someone in the spotlight ... point and case this past week with the casey anthony VS GREECE MELTDOWN!!!! that is all fuck cnn
There should have been a Constitutional Convention every 50 years to keep up with changes in both technology and society.
The author of this piece is a complete idiot.
Many others have already posted the many points showing why this would not be acceptable, and displayed the authors lack of knowledge of history as well as these documents.
No need to provide further input there.
CNN needs to get rid of this moron.
The Constitution was written to give the people the right to tell Government what it could and could not do. But, we have allowed folks to get elected that couldn't care any less about what the Constitution says. Therefore, we have laws that go beyond the Constitution's boundaries. The Constitution, for the most part, doesn't need to be rewritten – it just needs to actually be enforced by the people. Do that, and you'll have your Republic again.
Although, the 14th Amendment needs some serious work. (Not foreseen at the time, but hello anchor babies)
one of the smartest comments we will ever see on a site like this.
Did you ever think that the reason some things aren't discussed ad nauseum in the Constitution is because the founders didn't feel the need to waste words? They expressed the powers that each branch had succinctly because they knew the Constitution would need to be fleshed out over time and because the folks in that room could not anticipate every situation that would arise. They were brilliant people. We don't need to rewrite the Constitution.
The constitution was just fine as it was. There is no need to change a thing. The only problems we have are the massive amounts of federal laws that have been enacted since the constitution. Many of them are not in line with the constitution. Until we get rid of our corporatist politicians, it is best to leave the document alone. It will NEVER be better with our current group of leadership.
Exactly right! The Founding Fathers had Liberty as their guiding light – as opposed to the clowns we have in government today. They have power as their guiding light.
And Fareed Zackaria is who agian, exactly?
While rewriting the Constitution might seem like a good idea, the process should only be controlled by individual citizens and be conducted without any influence of any business, religion, etc. In actuality the outcome would be horrible because they would go in the opposite direction. It would be all about taking away individual rights in favor of building a Confucionist oligarchy to be compatible with a growing census. I will never favor that, I would take up arms to prevent that. I would rather have the Constitution as it stands now than to give up one single right. I would only favor a rewriting that resulted in the status quo or gains for the individual.
Imagine processing 300+ million people's ideas...that's why federalism works better. The central government should stay responsible for defending our nation. The state and local governments is where this innovation should take place.
I think the US Constitution needs to stay intact and the original intent needs to be enforced. The US government has abused its power to amend it based on political agenda (although I would keep obvious improvements such as equal voting rights and abolition of slavery) and has created a new system that is imbalanced, corrupt. and not representative of the people. Going back to square one is a dangerous proposition. The historical context of the document needs to be taken into account, I agree, but I think if our country had been living Constitutionally (as in living Intentionally) all these years – always striving to be the best that it can be, respecting each others' rights as individuals, enforcing all laws 100% of the time, allowing the state and federal levels to cooperate instead of fighting for power over the average citizen, and running the government with the checks and balances that our wise forefathers initiated – we would not be in the heaps of trouble financially and otherwise that we are now. We are one big community and we need to grow up and start acting like one. Read the original US Constitution, Mr. Zakaria. The problems of our generation do not stem from there, but from the cowardice of modern man (meaning men and women) to actually follow the intent of those amazing words to be a shining example of liberty and freedom.
Why should we listen to this Zakaria guy? He's all over the place lately and being mostly on the other guys side. Leave OUR Constitution alone. Don't like it? Go back to your country.
I say get rid of the federal government, and let the states govern themselves. Abolish the income tax and install a consumption tax. Since we have nukes, get rid of the military. If anyone invades us, they get obliterated by nuclear missiles. And lastly, full disclosure on extraterrestrials.
This, quite possibly, could be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.
I think a Constitutional Convention is looooong overdue. The founding fathers never imagined their document would last, largely unchanged, for even a hundred years. The fact that it has survived two hundred plus years is more a testament to the lack of motivation of U.S. citizens than the quality of the document.
Don't get me wrong - it is a passable governmental document. We have yet to completely collapse as a country. But we grapple daily with issues and complexities utterly beyond the scope of the founding fathers. They could not possibly have been able to imagine the problems caused by instant news, blogs, computer forgeries and identity theft, large-scale environmental degradation, and the like - just as we cannot imagine the problems from 2100.
Whether this method or that method or representation is historically important is not relevant. ALL forms of representation - as well as the possibility of true, direct democracy - should be on the table. To be the innovative country we all crave, it is not sufficient to tweak laws a little, moving from conservative to liberal and back again, over and over. Medical costs are outrageous - but doctors need incentives, as do pharmaceutical companies. One new law here or there is simply not enough.
I applaud Iceland's plan to garner ideas from their constituents via the internet. A *REAL* democracy values the actual input of citizens. If we looked at ideas from OUR citizens, most would be ridiculous. But amongst the chaff, a few kernels of brilliance might emerge.
I seriously doubt anyone in our government has the gumption to actually push for this. The vast majority of politicians are either in it for their own power and wealth, or fanatically following an ideology, unwilling to waver or open the government up to the possibility of radical change. But radical change *CAN* create radical improvement, if those involved actually care enough to do it sensibly and thoughtfully, like the founding fathers did.
One small difference, Edwin. The radical change the founding father's pushed for was to get the government off of the backs of the people and out of their lives. The radical change that Government would push for is to get that power back...and, it indeed has over time. I know "radical change" sounds good, but not if it means giving up essential liberties and freedoms.
Edwin: I am sure that you can do a much better job than the founders because you are so utterly brilliant... what a putz
What's the point? We'll just ignore the new one right away, too. Whiskey Rebellion, anyone?
After we pay off the national debt....either through taxation, spending cutbacks or massive financial catastrophe....and run a small surplus....we should enact this amendment....
1. The US Government shall only run a deficit contemplating a gave and imminent threat to national security.
so...cold war yes....knocking 2 buildings down no
2. Universal health care....in place of the interest on the debt
3. Corporate lobbying...for every dollar Corporations spend on lobbyists...they must spend a dollar on anti-lobbyists
for instance....if the tobacco industry wants to spend 1 million dollars on lobbying for tobacco....they must give an additional 1 million dollars to anti-tobacco activists. Very much like an indigent person is given an attorney if he or she cannot afford one.
And why would I care what this person things of our founding
documents?
You should never care what someone writes. You should read the words and think for yourself.
I. Our Congress should be based upon proportional representation, not a winner-take-all two-party system. Smaller parties should win an appropriate proportion of the legislature. A two party state is only slightly more democratic than a one-party state.
II. The electoral college must go.
III. The federal government should not have to tie almost all of its authority to the interstate commerce clause. The line between federal and state powers should be much clearer.
^THIS.
1. Only American citizens (not corporations, labor unions, etc.) should be able to contribute to political campaigns.
2. Politicians can only receive campaign contributions from constituents in their districts (states for Senators and nationwide for the POTUS).
3. Support for Initiative and Referendum at the federal level.
Interesting ideas, Robert. Thank you for your input.
I'm not entirely sure of the exact wording and obviously it would be needed to be enforced greater than it historically was, but I always felt the Roman system of limiting how much business their Senators could conduct while in office (as well as limiting the donations or gifts they could receive) would be a great addendum. Make Congress and the government a place of ideas and innovators who wish to serve, not a place for lackeys who wish to line the pockets of their patrons (not to mention their own).
Wow~ I certainly hope that this schmuck is an "American Citizen" because in writing this he has committed an act of treason. Fareed should hang from the gallows in Ft. Leavenworth, KS and I for one am complaining/filing charges with the F.B.I, this is not freedom of the press nor speech when treason is involved.
There is a forum and method to do this; it's called an amendment ~ what this traitor has done here though is called TREASON.
I hope you are joking, HangThisSchmuck, because, if you are not, (1) You are retarded, (2) You are evil, and (3) You would have failed 1st grade civics.
Parts of our Constitution certainly does need to be re-written! What worked in the days of our founding fathers is not working now.
1. Formalize the term "separation of church and state."
2. Provide for national healthcare and a national social security that cannot be abridged
3. No corporate funding of elections.
People, he's asking for ideas, not a rehashing of opinions about our current document. Start thinking anew!!!
It already states that seperation of church and stae is that the government cannot force you to believe in one religion.
Get your own health care. (I don't want to pay for you bad choices)
Get a job
This country became great specifically because the Constitution, coupled with its' prescription for a balance of power amid the two houses of Congress, ensured the freedoms of Americans to pursue familial, religious, and financial goals of boundless substance and without interference from the government. Our forefathers clearly understood, as evidenced in the language of the Constitution, that life will never exist absent of chaos – economic downturns, periodic personal strife or inter-societal conflict. It was therefore drafted a national guideline for our laws a document not promising beyond national defense protection by government, but from government. Indeed, it was only when Americans began demanding protection by government from the more natural chaos of individual life (e.g., financial challenges associated with old age and health care, job security, joblessness, etc.) that government became not only over-bearing but economically unsustainable. Until we return to a national mindset that embraces and accomodates the power of the individual rather than the society, as set forth in the Constitution, American greatness will remain mediocre.
Oh Christ almighty, no. Don't touch that document.
It sounds like a good idea, but I really don't think it is. It's unlikely that we would be able to come up with a new constitituion that would benefit everyone and still guarantee all of the rights that we have now. If or gov't decided to create a new constitution, who knows what would happen. I don't want to lose the rights I have now. I think we should keep the current document.
It doesn't really matter any more what the left versus the right really thinks. There is no common enemy – only each other.
And so then will be no reconciliation – like in a divorce. A Constitution only ever reflects an ideological consensus. We have been reduced to 'interpreting' what Americans thought 200 years ago. At best this is a fantasy. If you look beyond yourselves for a second and feel the energy – it is an active pressure of divided and conquer emanating from the haves and the wannabes.
I am not hopeful that this grand experiment has not run its course.
No, I don't want a bunch of idiots who know nothing about history and who are easily swayed by what they see on TV entertainment 'news' shows deciding what is in the Constitution.
In my opinion, the United States Constitution should have an amendment that address the issue of immigration. As President Obama said from the past, I don't understand why are we deporting children back to their own country when they practically were all educated in the United States and grew up here. Why would you deport them back and make them go against the United States? And as the members of The Republican, they don't know what is like the life of a commoners. I hope you do realize what Arizona has turned into ever since after the state law of the immigration; it made many immigrants, specifically Latinos, moved out of that place; therefore, cost even more damage to the economy. The United States is made up of IMMIGRANTS. That is why we are call UNITED States of America, because all the states and people were united together. And to talk about immigrants, I don't see why immigrants should go back to their own country when this land technically belongs to the Native America in the first place.
Jack you are confused...We cherish immigration...We deplore illegal immigrants...That the distinction you folks keep trying to confuse people with. It won't work. Do it the right way and you are welcome with open arms...Sneak in the back door and end up...as a home invader should...
There are so many interesting comments from a diverse group of people. I love my country but I am troubled how representatives of government have allowed their personal adjenda's to take priority. This beautiful document was written over 220 years ago, and realistically, the world has developed considerably from that time. We started with colonies and now have states. Where our focus was on our new country and it's Colonies/States, We have now become part of a global picture. When a State makes changes to their constitution, the Federal Government steps in and tells the States "NO". Then what use is State government if the Federal Government is always micromanaging states that they don't represent? A law is made in Arizona and people in other states cry "foul" and work the system (Government) to change the will of the citizens of that state. I do not believe this was our original plan those many years ago. Elected officials go off to Washington, and make changes that cost us jobs, affect our economy, and "elect" to put us into wars that cost us dearly. How many citizens would have voted to increase oil production in their states, but would have been told from Washington, no "We control the oil". Banks go under for bad business practices and people in Washington decide that we can spend our tax money to bail them out. And when the banks recover, they pass the hurt onto us by making it harder and harder to get a loan, get an extension, or in banking terms "No bailout from us." And who defends the banks? The same people who have been manipulating this beautiful document to serve their needs. Something needs to change because the current form of government has been able to stretch and distort this document to their personal "needs". Something needs to change and throwing insults to everybody you disagree with is just spinning wheels and going nowhere.........Our country needs to re-align itself with where we are today and prevent Lawmakers from working our Consititution and Bill of Rights to suit their own means. We must remember that many of our problems have originated/voted into law, in Washington and not by the States. If one can run to the Federal Government, each time that they want to change what the people have decided, then what good is the Consititution? We should not allow law makers to turn their philosophy into ours. There, my feelings............and if you don't like my thoughts, then don't insult me, don't put my ideas down....just think about what I am rambling about. We all have an opinion and when we insuylt instead of reflect, we are doomed to continue down the same road to nowhere.
Well said. I believe that the Constitution should be revised in terms of language every generation – so that there is no ambiguity about meaning, and also so that the Constitution becomes once more – a living document reflecting the sovereignty of the American citizens , rather than their government or plutocracies.
What's with all the talk about democracy?
This country is a Republic and should stay that way. I don't want places like California ruining my state like they have ruined theirs simply because they have more people.
Okay, so Fareed wants us to be like that bankrupt state of Iceland? Where does CNN find all of these fools?
A good way to start with fair representation and having one man get one vote is to not count illegal immigrants in the cenus. The current act of counting them gives a legal citizen a district with a lot of counted illegal immigrants makes their vote worth more than voters in other districts.
I think the entire system works quite well. The electoral college is a problem because now Presidential candidates ignore large states AND small states, and just focus all their attention on swing states. That can be fixed without amending the constitution (google "fairvote")
The biggest problem we right now, and from which so many other problems stem, is the influence (legalized bribery) powerful corporations, the rich, and unions have on our elected representatives. Since the SCOTUS has determined that money and free speech are the same thing, we need a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to set up publicly funded elections properly so that this influence is greatly reduced.
Correction: I meant the National Popular Vote, not Fair Vote - but both are good ideas.
How Ironic that this lib writer is bringing up the electoral college...The GOP has the power and are rearranging the districts...I imagine this fool would not even mention it if the DEMs where in the same shoes – Don't ever compare us to Iceland! We have the best health care in the world. Buy it, get a job and get it or use medicaid. Your choice, be a doer, or be a parisite...That's the great thing about America
The author destroys what little credibility this article had with his particular complaints about the Constitution. The Electoral College and the Senate exist as checks on some of the abuses that unfettered democracy can suffer from. Why are liberals like Zakaria so eager to point out the flaws in unfettered capitalism but so eager to pursue the same in its cousin, democracy?
I can see them using systems already in place to amend the constitution to bring it into the times. They don't need a complete re-write just some adjustments. the group should be elected by the people not to have more than 1 person from any political party as a member of the delegation. In fact can we just ban all political parties and just have people think as individuals?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
... so I think we have advanced enough to skip the blood part, but you get the picture!
Oh wait if we skip the blood we might not need the 2nd amendment.. oops.... don't tell FOX news I said that!
If anyone today thinks that they are as intellectual as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton, coupled with prior living in a repressed state under monarchy rule, having their rights and freedoms limited by a foreign power, and having fought and spilled blood for your liberty and the liberty of others....then by all means step to the plate and suggest changes to the U.S. constitution, because you earned the right to say so. If not, you have better sit this one out because you are not qualified.
Well spoken !!!!
We can't even trust these corrupt & incompetent politicians to right a health care bill or balance the budget, so why in the world would we let them tinker with the most important document in this country? You know in your gut they would go in there under the premise of doing something good for average Americans but would come back having managed to only do good for themselves, lobbyists and corporations.
I seem to remember FDR advocated for a new bill of rights that would essentially rewrite the US constitution to guarantee all citizens access to a minimum level of education and health care. I would definitely be in favor of such an update. As heretical as it is to suggest the US constitution is imperfect (I've seen a number of comments calling Fareed Zakaria anti-American), the fact is, the US has the second oldest constitution in the world. Only the San Marino has an older constitution. What we need to recognize, is the political philosophy behind the US constitution, rather than spend our time bickering over the specific meaning of each passage. The US constitution was largely an adaptation of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, and in the spirit of John Locke, it makes much more sense to update the constitution based on what we have learned about economics and society in the last 200 years rather than continue to try to make policy fit into a brilliant but outdated document.
Let's see, a liberal and islamic scholar (site his own biography) writes an article on the US constitution? really? Why? The US constitution is one of the major reasons this country is great. No country is perfect but the founding fathers had wisdom beyond their years. I think the suggestion of rewriting the constitution is close to treason. The only thing corrupting the constitution are the idiots in government that don't follow it. I love the fact that I am gauranteed freedoms. If anything we should embrace our constitution more
Carl, recommending amendments to the Constitution is not treason. In fact, it is provided for in the Constitution itself. Citizens are free to speak as they wish, to petition the government, and to propose amendments to the Constitution. To try to criminalize those activities is . . . well . . . treason.
I think the time has come, and passed, for a new Constitutional Convention. We need to streamline the electoral process, make definitive national decisions on the role of healthcare and our rights to it, fairness in our tax structure, ownership and stewardship of natural resources (including the airwaves), and clear boundaries between the rights and responsibilities of the individual, the state, and the federal government rather than the wishy-washy ambiguity of the 10th Amendment.
Term limits needs to be in the constitution. A clear oversight as proven by our corrupt senate. That would go a long way toward returning power to the people and away from the lobbies. Don't expect it to happen though, need to be in there from the beginning.
The constitution is an antiquated document drafted by white men that owned slaves 222 years ago! Amendments only go so far. This is the information age, take advantage of it.
It works, why fix it? If we want it changed, we can amend it. That process has worked well for over 200 years...
As to the electoral college, it also works, why change it? We are NOT a democracy, we are a republic. The electoral college reflects that ideal. Personally, I would like to have it revert to the old days when the electors were free to vote their conscience and were not bound by the vote in their state...but I am a Luddite...
There are so many things that should be added to a new Constitution, not the least of which is some type of rule to deal with the twisted electoral system that allows a man who lost the popular vote to still become president. However, just to be safe, we should probably keep the 13th Amendment. After all, people have tendencies to forget the little things at times...
The evidence that this journalist presents on his very limited of our Constitution tells me he shouldn't be suggesting that the general populous of the US should have a hand in changing the most important document our country uses to govern by. It is a living document and in my experience a great many people don't even know their rights under the law. A population of people who don't know their own rights, laws, or the content of their Constitution shouldn't be making suggestions on how to change it.
...one thing that is a little disheartening, but not surprising
is the number of posters that do not understand the function or history or the house or senate and why they were set up as they were. As for the "we have the technology to set up a popular vote"... yeah, right – again, let's review some history – we were not set up as an Athenian demoncracy – we were established as a republic with a representative democracy. If you want to really see the US crater, contrary to what you might read or think, try letting an uneducated, easily influenced electorate be given complete freedom to vote (emotionally) on all issues as an up and down vote. No benefit would ever go away, no tax would ever be approved or all would be abolished, and whatever candidate or issue got the best advertising would win the election hands down. Our infrastructure would crumble in 2 years and whatever enemy wished to take over could with little effort. Some will respond and say – "we have that now" – no we do not, we have checks and balances that work and have through our darkest times, when many other countries did have to reform their entire governments, ours in the US remained.
Our system in the US is the best, bar none, in the world. The documents that created it were as relevant and powerful today as they were then, maybe more so, because we would never have the unique set of individuals who would have or could have come together today or any other time – as they did in the late 1700's. Read some history folks, not what the GPS program has to propose.... the founder had it right, and we should not ever be swayed by idiots waving contemporary issues and comparisons saying "we know so much more than they did"....
Well said, I concur.
and rewrite the bible and koran while youre at it
1. Add the Air Force to the Constitution
2. Add the FBI to the constitution
3. iono
Why do you keep mentioning the word "democratic". The United States is not a democracy...It's a constitutional republic. The problem is not that we need to 'change' the constitution–government needs to FOLLOW IT. Corporatism has supplanted our constitutional republic...The voices of the few (wealthy) are what matter...The banks and corporations dictate that–any 'new' law would be ignored just like the constitution.
The delegates didn't "see a disconnect." The articles of the confederation were a disaster. I used to think Fareed Zakaria was a good reporter that actually researched things, but apparently he's never read the constitution, has no idea what's in it or the reasons behind the makeup of our branches of government. Equal representation by population posed problems for smaller states. Equal representation by state posed problems for larger states. The compromise? The house and senate. I'm not going to bother with the rest of it. This is garbage reporting. I expected better.
I think this is a trick question – technically the U.S. is a series of nations that are bound together under a single government. To get rid of the electoral college would be paving the way for getting rid of states. I live in the South, under insane redneck reign. So, I could support dissolving the states completely. We'd need a new name for the nation though.
Oh i knew i'd see this.. Get rid of the second amendment huh? Great way to instantly kick off the second civil war.
can we just get a revolution started already? there are number of things we need to do to tweak our government (congressional term limits, judicial term limits, maybe popular elected judges, popular elected bureau head, a ban on corporate campaign financing, a reform of rules for or outright ban of lobbying, making election day a holiday to improve voter turnout, end the electoral college system) and the guys in power now don't seem to be interested in any of them! many of our most important senators and congressman have been in power as long as ghadafi or mubarak! fixing our broken government will in turn fix (mostly) everything else. this is the 'change' that everyone thought barack obama was talking about and why they voted for him.
HELL NO!
WHY?
SO THOSE WHO WANT SAME SEX MARRIAGE CAN HAVE IT.
YOU NEVER TAKE IT IN CONSIDERATION THOSE STATES ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
THE PEOPLE WHO WAS BORN IN THOSE STATES-LOOK AT IT AS A SMACK IN THE FACE.
HOW CAN THE STATE I WAS BORN IN.
IGNORE THE TRUE MEANING OF HUMAN BIRTH.
IF THEY CONSIDERING ON ADOPTING – SAME SEX MARRIAGES IS JUST MAKING IT WORSE FOR THE CHILD TO BE BROUGHT UP WITH UNMORAL PRINCIPALS.
I URGE ALL STATES TO STOP SAME SX MARRIAGES.
IT DESTROY LIVES.
SAME SEX MARRIAGES CAN NOT PRODUCE HUMAN LIFE!.
Hey Marvin, your shrink called. He said you missed the med line and it's time to go back to the hospital. No more interwebz for you, crazy dude.
the only reason anyone is against gay marriage is because of their religion. in the united states, the state may have no established religion. therefore a law banning gay marriage is based solely on religious beliefs and is unconstitutional. sure laws against murder and theft were originally created due to religious beliefs, but those impede the rights of others where gay marriage does not.
The only thing I can think of that would be worse than updating the Constitution on the whim of whatever party happens to be in office.... doing so with the help of FACEBOOK.
I can't speak for Icelanders, but I DO know that most Americans are not only misinformed, but completely uninformed about many of the important issues facing this country. "Crowd sourcing" the US Constitution would be the worst thing this country could ever do. You let the general public put in their input, things like Glee and American Idol would find their ways into the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
if you want something done, do it yourself
The press is failing to report all that it knows that the government does to harm or injure civilians in the United States, so how could we reasonably trust this forum? Moreover, who is a legal U.S. citizen and who is not? Who is going to share that information publicly in valid authenticated evidence over the web during a discussion? The "best" ideas might be shared on your web site, but it needs to be the best from valid legal United States citizens where it can be determined that the majority of U.S. citizens have Internet access and access to your web site, but not to be set off and denied to some in favor of the rest.
I caution CNN as this can be construed as inciting a riot.
©2011 American Citizen ™. All Rights Reserved.
you are not an american citizen, you are the bastard child of the invading white plague. Native americans say all people of color welcome.
Revising or scrapping the Constitution and starting anew is great idea, with inevitably horrible results.
Unfortunately, special interests (giant corporations) would do everything they could to hijack the process, including pouring in billions of dollars to influence the reform. America would end up with a Constitution that guarantees "equal rights" to all corporations and "more than equal rights" to the rich. As in most political processes in this country, the poor and the middle class would lose more than they gain.
Can we specifically impose term limits on the office of Governor of Texas? We need to get rid of Governor Perry before he destroys our fine state any more.
From reading many of the comments on here, it seems the basic problem is some people want us to change to a Democracy while others want us to stay a Democratic Republic.
I prefer the Republic. A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
The primary reasons the Constitution is an amazing document that has survived for over 200 years are the authors. Since the assorted clowns, self-aggrandizing idiots, socialists, over-sexed shameless buffoons populated the majority of political seats, there are not enough people of merit, wisdom, or integrity to change the Constitution significantly. Paraphrasing Drucker, the problems of this country can be traced 100% to inferior politicians (management).
Just like a non-American to think up changing the Constitution that made America attractive to immigrants in the first place.
the original americans, native americans say screw you and the horse your constitution rode in on
The Senate was never supposed to be representative of the populaton.
It was meant to be representative of the States.
The House of Representatives is the body which is representative of the population. One man, one vote.
.
Rewrite laws pertaining to firearm ownership, sale and distribution. Ban handguns and impose strict penalties on gun ownership, severe indictictment on criminals and those responsible for gun crime and death.
Hmmm. Who is going to protect you when someone overthrows the government. Don't be a fool!
time for you to go, by gunpoint or otherwise
NO, lets ReWrite Laws to Restrict Freedom of Speech so you can't say what you just said. In fact, let's just restrict the freedoms of everyone! That way its all equal again !
Here are three ideas:
1. Clarify that constitutional rights are held by PEOPLE, not corporations
2. Clearly establish the implied right to privacy
3. Requirement for a balanced budget, with some rare exceptions (war or super majority vote)
Fareed Zakaria is smarter than more than half the people we elect or appoint to interpret our constitution, and probably as smart as more than half of the folks who helped frame the thing. He is a knowledgeable and engaged witness to our history, and has greater access to the great ideas of our time than many of us... I for one am pleased and flattered that he chooses to spend time and effort on helping us Americans gain some much needed perspective on our founding principles.
Do you really trust him? I don't trust him.
i'm glad you don't because we don't need you
I am afraid we are not the country today that would produce enough intelligent thoughts to change the constitution. Our founding fathers had the foresight to think about what is good for the country. Today...everyone wants what is good for their own personal agenda. God help us if this thought gets legs. American Idol voting on our constiution? Please.
I think its funny how some of you have nothing better to do than to write massive comments on these things. Get out much?
I believe Mr. Zakaria has a valid point in that we should at least begin the conversation on modifying our current Constitution and governmental institutions. Thomas Jefferson recognized that things must change over time. On the southeast interior wall of the Jefferson Memorial are these words from him: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He recognized that the context of the time in which they wrote this brilliant document would change due to things they could not envision then.
I would add that Islam is abolished and illegal in the Constitution. Any Muslims that didn't agree would be deported to Africa. Let's re-write it. Good idea Zakari u fing idiot!
you are next
Great idea, but now is not the time. Our government is so dysfunctional now that members of the House don't even know a majority of others within their own party. Consider some of these facts:
57% of republicans still believe Obama is a Muslim
America is #17, 23, and 30 in Math, science and history in the world.
- Is this the "educated populace" that will decide the new draft?
Also, consider that there are over 9 Lobbyist for every Senator in D.C. Lobbying is now the Fourth Estate, and you better damn well believe they will have a hand in the final revision.
Fareed, I love your mind and perspective, and if we had a country full of people like you and Thomas Friedman, I would absolutely go for this. But the reality is far from that, and our government needs to be fixed- but not from the general populace, and not with special interest having a hand, and not with the fierce partisanship that now exists. I would trust you to create one, but that's about it.
You think? We have been through every singe possible combination of a democratic/republican president with a democratic/ republican house and a democratic/republican senate and we fail to solve the problems that face our nation: failing schools, an outdated immigration policy, an energy policy that makes us more dependent on foreign oil, over regulations on small businesses, corrupt regulators for large corporations, the increasing trade deficit, the debt bomb that is the retiring baby boomers and the entitlements promised to them, the overly complicated tax code that has high rates yet a deduction and writeoff for just about everything, peoples reliance on welfare, the disappearing middle class, the fact that we are always at war, the continuing success of wall street at the expense of main street. The american republic has failed to find a solution to these problems in its current form, it must be changed. This is not about small vs big government this is about good vs bad government, effective vs ineffective government, a government for the people or not for the people more and more the US government is the latter. Even our founding fathers would recognize the need to either re-write the constitution or pass several amendments.
In an age when virtually every election is decided by 51-49% our current system does not lend itself to politicians tackling the tough issues of the day be they social security, medicare, immigration etc. Since the solution to these problems more than likely would come at great political cost to those voting for the tough medicine needed to solve our problems. Yes we need alterations to our constitution perhaps even going for a Benevolent Dictator who could make the tough choices sure to alienate most voters.
Farid should go back to INDIA and fix his stupid country. It is our greatness and freedom that anybody from any where
can come here and become somebody, like this LOOSER. We have enough radicals in this country that over the
years have changed Americans way of life, and destroyed our education , our religion and everything they could
get their hand on it. We dont need another looser who does not even understand our magnificent constitution
to touch it. If you dont like our system go where you coming from and stick to it and LEAVE US ALONE.
CNN MUST BE DESPERATE TO HIRE THIS LOOSER
the sooner we end your set of screwed up values, the better
Like most others here, I agree that there's a reason for each state having only two Senators. It pains me as a Californian that my two liberal ladies' votes are usually cancelled by two guys from Wyoming, whose population is like 1% of California's. Still, this is the right way to craft the Constitution. I suppose people in Texas could make the same complaint about Vermont.
The electoral college needs to go, period. It was an embarrassment to our country on the international stage in 2000, and it shouldn't happen again. It'd also get rid of some of the silly games played in campaign season, i.e. playing only to 'swing' states.
Let's also devise some sort of system that enables a third (or fourth) party to actually be a major player. Under the current system, voters are discouraged from voting for anyone else since they seldom have a chance of winning. Perhaps a system where we vote for a party, and then seats in the legislature are divvied up proportionally? Open to ideas here, but I think most people are fed up with the two-party system.
Let's also get rid of the requirement that the President be born in the US. We are a nation of immigrants. Why can't one be President? I think the requirement should just be "if you can vote for President, you can be President." Aside from that, leave it to the voting pubilc to determine the basis for disqualifying a candidate. At the very least it'd put an end to all this "birther" nonsense.
This article will give me nightmares for the next month.
sweet dreams
Dear CNN,
Fareed is a tool! Please, I implore you, fire his lame @#$ and hire some real talent!
xoxo, Hillary
he's your daddy
This guy takes a failed government and says they are doing it why bnot us? we have been in the lead for over a century on ANY contry because iof the consitution and this brown man can tell us all he wants but he is an anchor baby and needs to be shipped back to Pakistan or some other ungodly place they came from.
in an effort to bring higher education to hillbillies like you, we are bringing Pakistan to you.. eat it
CNN never ceases to surprise me. Who exactly would write this new constitution, our politicians? They can't even spend within our means. We are the BEST country in the world with NO exceptions, due to our constitution. CNN why not spend you time and money on better things than suggesting such stupid things
its so fun to see how you the stupid see intelligence as dum
Sounds like a great way to start a civil war. Leave it alone.
The items that Mr zakaria has discussed certainly bring up good questions for consideration, but not even close to the discussion for rewriting the Constitution. If he thinks the Senate is out of date (it was a must to get the small states to ratify it), let's look at an amendment, not a do over. Even better, if we want to fix our political system, let's lift the 1929 freeze on representatives and go back to 1 for 50,000 residents. That's real change that can be readily enacted. What stops it? representatives hate to be 1 out of 435, could you image them being 1 out of 6000?
Time to get rid of anchor babies, ban on same sex marriage and a few others. All of which would easily pass a vote by all the states.
the constitution has been changed without any of you know obviously its called the patriot act. god you people need to start to open your eyes and see whats going on instead of believing everything you hear in the media. im so sick of robot america. this country was founded on free thinking now if you post something on the internet against this administration your a rebel. So obviously freedom of speech is slowly being thrown out the window too. whatever though you people continue to live in your fantasy world but when this place crumbles, and it will crumble you can plead ignorance because there are people informing you.
You don't know the difference between a law and Constitution? You're probably not alone.
The Constitution is the one thing that can save America from the Patriot Act.
Eliminate the electoral college. It's an archaic & unjust concept that unfairly rewards States that fail to attract a population vs. those who earn a larger population.
Another arabic muslim s**t head trying to mess with our way of life. Leave america alone already. We do need to secure our borders also. Freakin a....
Gosh, who would have seen THAT coming??
vincent, tthink i'll stay til i'm done with your and your country
It is Arab.
After reading this article over again the basic logic presented, for needing a rewrite, is that it's "old"? Just look at phrasing such as: "After all, the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 initially meant not to create the Constitution as we now know it, but instead to revise the existing document, the Articles of Confederation.". This whole piece is nothing but a pointless propositional fallacy. I wish I could be payed to write unfalsifiable nonsense and claim to be some form of journalist. The arguments often cited against the Constitution are more often than not actually related to the recurring "legal interpretations" of it's meaning in lieu of what was actually written in the document itself. Maybe we should "rewrite" the standards of employment for state and federal judges before we touch the Constitution of the United States of America.
HELL NO!
WHY?
SO THOSE WHO WANT SAME SEX MARRIAGE CAN HAVE IT.
YOU NEVER TAKE IT IN CONSIDERATION THOSE STATES ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
THE PEOPLE WHO WAS BORN IN THOSE STATES-LOOK AT IT AS A SMACK IN THE FACE.
HOW CAN THE STATE I WAS BORN IN.
IGNORE THE TRUE MEANING OF HUMAN BIRTH.
IF THEY CONSIDERING ON ADOPTING – SAME SEX MARRIAGES IS JUST MAKING IT WORSE FOR THE CHILD TO BE BROUGHT UP WITH UNMORAL PRINCIPALS.
I URGE ALL STATES TO STOP SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
IT DESTROY LIVES AND FAMILY.
SAME SEX MARRIAGES CAN NOT PRODUCE HUMAN LIFE!.
DO NOT CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BASE ON HOMOSEXUALITY!...
clearly you are afraid of those kids turning out like you
If they don't adopt children, then those children without parents would live an even worse life. I neither support or not support homosexuality, but I think they should get equal rights.
I would just like to point out that our founding fathers were alcoholic, wig wearing, slave owning, pot smoking weirdo's that would be shocked at what the constitution they designed has turned in to, and would favor re-writing it, because we are so far removed from the original intent on the constitution that our nation would be unrecognizable to them.
The 3 amendments I would include are renunciation the Electoral Vote, a balanced budget, and not allowing gay marriages
HELL NO!
WHY?
SO THOSE WHO WANT SAME SEX MARRIAGE CAN HAVE IT.
YOU NEVER TAKE IT IN CONSIDERATION THOSE STATES ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
THE PEOPLE WHO WAS BORN IN THOSE STATES-LOOK AT IT AS A SMACK IN THE FACE.
HOW CAN THE STATE I WAS BORN IN.
IGNORE THE TRUE MEANING OF HUMAN BIRTH.
IF THEY CONSIDERING ON ADOPTING – SAME SEX MARRIAGES IS JUST MAKING IT WORSE FOR THE CHILD TO BE BROUGHT UP WITH UNMORAL PRINCIPALS.
I URGE ALL STATES TO STOP SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
IT DESTROY LIVES AND FAMILY.
SAME SEX MARRIAGES CAN NOT PRODUCE HUMAN LIFE!.
DO NOT CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BASE ON HOMOSEXUALITY!...
OR ANY ISSUE REGARDING TO HOMOSEXUALS!...
Stop being such a homophobe
This piece of garbage is most ridiculous propaganda piece I have ever read.
Number one the Senate was set up the way it is set up with equal representation regardless of population because The United States of America is a Republic based on the Law and Individual Liberty and Freedom NOT a Democracy. The Founding Fathers were as much afraid of Democracy as a Tyranny. The Latin root meaning for Democracy is Majority Rule or in other words Lynch Mobs and Mob rule.
democracy
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
There is a process that we can change the Constitution and that is by an Article V convention. Also, the Founding Fathers knew how precious the American Experiment was so they made it extremely hard to Amend the constitution.
The Senate acts as a check on more populous states taking away the rights from the least populous states. If we made the changes that this article suggests than 51% of the people could take away the rights of the other 49%. The whole point of a Republic is to protect the minority Vote and to lessen the concentration of power into a few hands. The founding fathers knew that Governments over time always centralize power more and power which always ends in Tyranny and oppression. Any student of History can tell that in 100% of the cases this progression always happens.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
Yet many democratic countries give more (or equal) rights to minorities. Your comparison is flawed...
This process is past due. You can't remain a world power if your basic laws are based on an outdated paper from the 1700s. Wake up America and listen to what the author (and many other people) are telling you. It's only people who are scared to loose some misinterpreted laws that are against updating it. Gun control comes to mind. If we would really translate the constitution you would be entitled to manually loaded hand gun or rifle with single shot ammunition... As long as that group can't see beyond their limited horizon, I don't have much hope for this to go any further though. Unfortunately, that probably means that we won't be a major player in the world much longer...
JST – you cannot be serious? The Constitution, regardless of what time period we are in, is a timeless piece of genius whereby it is the first time that a document detailed the power lies within each of us, and that it limits the power of Gov. You are in charge, not your Gov.
As far as your naively asinine comment re: "gun control" – again, the founding fathers knew that in order to stave off a corrupt Gov takeover (think Taliban, Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc) that the last line of defense lives within each of us. Our right to bear arms means that we can ensure that our Gov doesn't overstep its bounds, if need be (ie, by way of revolution – just in case you are too dense to understand the intent).
Our Constitution LIMITS the power of Gov and reminds us that the power lies within each of us – however, after reading many of these comments, some of you people are begging to give up your rights & freedoms, and gladly hand them over to a Government... be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!!
I bet the folks over in those countries I mentioned wish they had a guaranteed right to bear arms right about now, while they are hopelessly trying to fight their corrupt, all powerful Gov – don't you?
I am sorry, but the constitution is outdated and your arguments show that there is some serious misinterpretation going on. I also don't think that the constitution is timeless piece of genius. It was a first attempt at something that has been done much better in many other countries since then. If you don't believe me, please ask someone who is knowledgeable about this. A good example would be Germany. They call their constitution "Verfassung" and it is also a document that is hard to change, but yet they manage to update it whenever it is really needed.
I can also only laugh about your "revolution" option. Do you really think that our government (or any other government) would allow protesters (or rebels) to take control of the nuclear arsenal by overthrowing the government? You would more likely see nuke mushrooms over rebellious states... Anyhow, this is all just empty talk to hide behind the constitution to find a justification to own guns. Like I suspected in my original posting people would never allow this discussion to take place because they are so scared to loose their "rights" that they miss out on understanding the importance to improve.
JST – hmmm, I wonder what happened during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War – could it be that we, the people, rose up & fought against what we believed to be a tyrannical Gov? If you don't think that power lies within most people, then you are sadly mistaken. Perhaps a few leftist pacifist whackos, but most people WOULD take up arms & fight for their freedom, if need be.
You are sadly not understanding the Constitution – it is NOT a document detailing Government's powers over the people, it is a document detailing the people's powers over the Government. That is a key difference that many libbies do not get.
You do NOT want the Gov telling you what to do – oh sure, a leftist Gov might make laws which make you happy – but ummmm, what about when a far right Gov gets into power? That's why there are checks & balances, and limits to Government power.
As far as your ridiculous example re: nuclear controls – ummmm, look around the world right now. You don't have to have control of the largest weapons (nukes) to wrest control from a corrupt Gov. Your argument makes no sense & only shows your ignorance of the history of this country.
If you want to live in a country where the Gov tells you what to do, there are many in existence today – take your pick & move there. Most real Americans are happy with the freedoms we have here (at least what's left).
take your constitution and shove it
I think you're opening a can of worms by looking to Facebook, of all places, for any Constitutional illumination. My God, that's like turning to fans of Oprah (with all due respect to the Diva of Everything) to decide how to fix the housing crisis. The whole Facebook experiment in Iceland is ludicrous and no good can come of it.
There are two big problems with the American political system: a primary system for choosing candidates which, in practice, gives too much power to a tiny groups of extremists on each end of the political spectrum.
Single member districts, as opposed to some sort of proportional representation system, creates an environment where there is no possibility of other political parties to exist.
Thus, only the fruitcakes and nutjobs are represented in government.
We do need a constitutional rework to fix this.
No, we are NOT simply a Democracy OR a Republic. We are a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED Republic, a.k.a, CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPRESENTATIVE Democracy. Learn to get your terms straight next time.
There's a practical reason to retain the electoral college for electing presidents. The 2000 vote in Florida was recounted because the margin was les than .5% of the votes cast. If we went to a system of popular voting wherein a majority was needed to elect a president and the margin was less than.5% than THE WHOLE BLOODY COUNTRY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A RECOUNT, and we could be faced with the problems we had in Florida times 50!!!!!!
It seems that you somehow missed the last election where many states had tons of recounts. Sometimes almost statewide. Not just a Florida problem anymore.
First of all I would not bother living in a country that has no gun rights for it's citizens. Second of all I would not like to imitate the constitution of a country that makes none religious people pay a religious tax under article 62 of its constitution, it reminds me a little too much of the jizya tax that none muslims have to pay under sharia law for not being muslims. 3rd of all Facebook is one of the lamest American inventions, which is the reason that it has lost 6 million members in the US alone and one 1.5 million members in Canada just this year. We as Americans can do better than that and we are better than that. 4th of all what works in a country with the population of four hundred thousand will definitely not work in a country with with a population with well over three hundred million people. Let's not forget the fact that Americans have 50 individual constitutions in 50 different states that guarantee rights for every state aside of our national constitution, which is a testament to the superiority of our constitution in it of itself. With that being said our constitution has stood the test of time and has been proven faithful. Left leaning thinkers would I like us to think there is something special about socialist constitutions and the way they do their thing but there isn't. I have lived and traveled through socialist countries and none can compare to the good old USA, and none warrant half of the to rights that and average American is guaranteed by our constitution, so why change something that works? Everything is done better here in the good old USA with a few exception like public education and the outsourcing of American jobs to name a few but these things can be remedied with the right leadership not by modifying our constitution. In this report Zacariah is right on only one thing, and that is that the crappy constitution of Iceland which mentions the rights of the president 60 times in 30 of it's79 articles needs a serious update so that it can look a lot more like ours.
Mr. Zakaria. There was a time when I wondered if you really cared about America. But obviously you only care about what you can change. I was in Iceland for about 2 years. And I can tell you they are highly educated. As a country much more so than we are. Some even speak three languages. So it comes as no surprise that you show envy as they revise their constitution. Here, we don’t have passion for this country only entitlement envy and family degradation. They (Icelanders) care a lot about their history, their culture and they are not afraid to let it show. However when we show passion, you quickly dismiss it as racism or bigotry.
Amendment 28
No elected official in the United States of America shall receive any contribution, gift, remuneration, honorarium, or service of any value, from any source, other than from an individual American citizen. Any violation of this amendment shall be punishable as a federal crime with loss of office and mandatory incarceration in a federal penitentiary.
Fareed Zakaria seems to believe that some sort of limited populist uprising can overcome what he views as "Un-democratic and unconstitutional provisions within the American Constitution". This guy went to both Yale and Harvard and apparently has no understanding of the Constitutional Process within the American Republic. How does a guy go through 7+ years at Ivy League Institutions and still be ignorant of the process or the Republic in which he lives???
Change the US Constitution? There's a process for that... it's called Amendments.
Oh Gawd – can't you just keep your opinions in private – on skype video ?
Lets ReWrite the Constitution so that the Media can only write what the government says they can write. Oh wait – I'm sorry. I think I was having a flashback to a time when that wasn't already true....
I'm guessing Mr. Zakaria has never heard of the amendment process and that it CAN be amended, as it has been in the past.
1. Eliminate electoral college
2. House limited to three 4 year terms
3. Senate limited to two 6 year terms
4. Senate and House expanded to better represent population'
5. All group political donations illegal. Individual only and full disclosure required.
great post!
America currently does not have the social and political maturity to debate this subject. Any debate would quickly descend into fear mongering, name calling, and paranoia.
WE SOOO SHOULD DO THIS!! reasons..cause were in a new century hell they didnt have cars, internet, cyber bullying ect ect in the days! I think we need to do a new constitution but with the same standards as we have with whole whole powers and everything. I think we would have to get rid of the elector college for sure!! that just unacceptable! I would add in Full Equality to Homosexuals and add in a Article for Animal Rights!!!also as well as eco friendliness. we could also add more laws for people rights in the cyber world in our constitution that we don't have that we need!! omg i could go on and on! but yes we should take after iceland, it is a time to Restart, Refresh!! We are a newer generation newer people and more up to date.
"they didnt have cars, internet, cyber bullying ect ect in the days..."
You're describing transportation, communication, crimes against person and property, etc. Those concepts have been around for thousands of years.
The constitution only works to this day because its content has to be twisted and contorted to fit today's world. Imagine all the things that were connected with the Constitutions Commerce clause, from sex offender registration, guns on school grounds to drug enforcement.
Other content of the constitution was left open for wide interpretation, or it was simply not explained what was meant. What is a "well regulated Militia", what are "Arms"? What is a "natural born citizen"? Because all of these are not defined further, it is not up to representatives of the people, but up to a few appointed judges for life, to decide on core parts of the constitution.
Many other countries have new constitutions that have evolved from the US constitution, often with significant help and input of the US government. The US constitution is a great work for its time, but for many things it has become like reading tea leaves.
most people understand these concepts, except, I guess, liberals. We, the people, can form a militia complete with "arms" (weapons), should the need arise, in order to defend ourselves against a tyrannical Gov.
I am utterly flabbergasted that most liberals are begging to give up their rights & freedoms for more Gov control & power...
No kidding. It be nice if the non-Liberals (Conservatives?) would form a political party.
Why don't you liberals just move to Iceland and help them make up a nation that's more to your liking. Clearly the constitution is always getting in the way of what you want, so just move to Iceland and help them create the liberal Nirvana you desire so much. Cradle to grave entitlements is what you want so go there and get them and leave our constitution alone. Since most of you nut-jobs don't seem to think that document is sacred, then go live where you won't have to live by it.
It's because of people like you that I fear any Constitutional modifications.
Iceland has ZERO illiteracy rate (which means YOU WIN on this count) and homelessness, uses green, geothermal energy to power the country, and yet can still see ways to improves themselves. Nice example, no? You are aware that our forefathers were also "nut-jobs" and neo-liberals at the time?
Wade, Conservatives hate The Constitution more than Liberals. Voting rights for Women, Equal Rights for Minorities, and Freedom of Religion – these are all problems for Real Americans and Real Americans fought every step of the way to guarantee those protections – and you people still resent equality and freedom to be anything including UnChristian today.
Oh yeh, Iceland also had the FIRST WOMAN president... novel idea, huh?
Because ANGER MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS is one of the great roots of conflict in the world, it makes perfect common sense that
1) No government official shall be elected who has serious anger management issues
We live in a "global world" (e.g. America does not constitute "everyone") that is shrunk by the proximity of the web community. We cannot honestly understand the true meaning of "global" without actually interacting with the rest of the world. Nevermind birthing issues, let's look at traveling issues... therefore
2) No FEDERAL government officials will be hired who have not traveled and spent significant time in at least 10 foreign countries or have not done humanitarian service overseas (ie Peace Corps)
Our laws are meant to protect the minority voice... In America, this refers predominantly to Atheists, gays and lesbians, etc. Instead of focusing on attaining equal rights for these groups, why not give them BETTER PRIVILEGES? For example, Atheists prioritize science over religion, so why shouldn't they receive the benefits of scientific technology over Christians – such as high speed internet, medical advances, and so on? Therefore,
3) Create a brand new system of advanced healthcare and legal unions (call it anything but marriage) that actually gives these individuals and couples more privileges, rights, and protection than the existing system. (Why, you ask? Because when the haves and have nots reverse roles in this capacity, heterosexuals will be calling themselves homos in order to receive "equal rights." Will this lead to empathy for the "other"? It's a step that at least truly protects the underserved)
I'd say 'Yes; it's time', but with a healthy dose of fear and dread.
The nation is as polarized as it's been since 1859. The ultraRight has sucked so much oxygen out of the political discourse as to shove it all to the right-hand side of your metaphorical radio-dial, where the likes of Rush Limbaugh and David Barton reside; the alternative is really a center-Right, occupied by Obama and the other pseudoProgressives.
By example, Barton (the man who was one of the chief architects of the Texas schoolbook re-write) would love to get his hands on our founding document for real, not just for colorful misinterpretation. He'd cheerfully turn America into a theocracy where I (an atheist) and you, Mr. Zakaria, would likely be deported at worst or turned into second-class citizens at the very best.
This is why I dread the prospect of revising the Constitution, as there are parts of the document which protect the rights of every minority in America.
To engage in an Iceland-like process assumes (1) sanity among the populace, and (2) a lack of extremity.
We have neither, nowadays.
–W.D. Noble
Portland, OR
If you get that twitter filth anywhere near the Constitution I'm headed to the nearest gun store...
Our government should just issue everyone a firearm (and train him/her how to use it properly) like they do in Switzerland, and then you wouldn't have to... Funny how everyone there is armed and yet they do not have the same violent crimes, etc...
Less we forget–rewrite this "National Birth Right." No more anchor babies–that means from any illegal nationality that is coming here without permission!!!!
Al Sanchez
Hi Al Sanchez,
sounds like one of your ancestors was an anchor baby once... Mr Glasshouse, meet Mr Stone.
Cheers,
Jeez
Mr. Zakaria, your are one of the most thoughtful commentators around, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this rare example of a bad idea poorly presented. Slow news day, right?
Others have said essentially said it, but (1) The US is not Iceland; the latter is a small country with a small population that can be governed effectively as a single political unit; the US is a vast federal republic of great geographic diversity with a large population of great cultural diversity and powerful dynamism; (2) the US Constitution may not be perfect, but it has provided concrete stability for the most spectacularly successful exercise in indirect democracy in world history; one should tamper with success rarely, if at all; (3) there is, as you pointed out, an existing mechanism for amending the Constitution, which has already been used 17 times (the first 10 amendments were done as a package deal); (4) there is no way on God's Green Earth that a modern exercise in Constitution writing would be measured or limited in the way you suggest, as a perusal of commentary to your article amply demonstrates!
Yes we should.
Amendment #1...
No more Muslims on CNN.
It is looking like aljazeera
Do my eyes deceive me, or is this really incredibly racist?
How about deleting the second amendment?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well-regulated militias are no longer necessary. They have been replaced by the National Guard and hundreds of police agencies.
good luck with that one, you might as well ask the NRA to leave the country
your appalling lack of understanding regarding the 2nd Amendment is exactly why our forefathers did NOT want a true democracy (ie, mob rule) – because it's possible that people like you could come into power.
Please read the entire 2nd Amendment, along with its history, and this time, try to understand it. The rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. We, the people, individuals. We all have that right, so that in the event of a corrupt Gov, we can revolt.
I know, you don't think that would happen – I'm sure the ppl in Libya, Syria, etc didn't think it would happen either. And I'm sure they're all wishing they had that same right (2nd Amendment) guaranteed to them right about now.
In my mind there are at least 2 major changes that need to be made to move ahead into the next century.
1. Riase the requirement for state hood to 30 million and consolidate the states into manageable an less costly entities , including a maximum of 4 sides to any congressional district.
2. While campaign contribution are "freedom of speech" we need a way to disallow members of congress from voting on issue that they have taken money for.
Wouldn't that make only California and possibly New York 'States?'
when you have groups like the westboro baptist church and the kkk and neo nazis running around making a mockery of our consitution you KNOW it needs to be updated, these people operate based on hatred with impunity because the document is too broad and too broadly applied to us via the supreme court, the fact that a group can protest at funerals is disgusting by itself let alone that they take the oppertunity to spread a hateful message along with it, what's even more pathetic is grieving families who have been harmed by people like this end up have to pay $$$ to them in court because the bill of rights allows their hate speech, except the first amendement was written almost 300 years ago when our founding fathers had no clue or idea that people like this would ever exist in our world....the consitution needs updating, not a major upheavel, just more clarification to allow itself to be much better inerpreted, for example
"free speech shall not apply to those who attempt to use this right to cause or promote a message of hatred for any one people or groups of people"
our constitution most definately needs to be updated for the modern age because it was written in a not so modern age
WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS NEVER KNEW WE WOULD HAVE CHARACTERS LIKE THESE IDIOTS IN OUR WORLD?? Our founding fathers knew we had BABOONS that exist in this world and whats the difference between them and you and all these other idiots? Who cares just shut up and sit down or go back to work for your boss, or you dont get any money, and If you dont like it then the competition will gladly take over your position in society, LOSER
"While I disagree with what you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That's the funny thing about the FREEDOM of speech – not everyone is going to agree with what everyone else says. Amazing to have that freedom, isn't it?
NO !!! get rid of career politicians who are turning USA into Communist police state. remember movie series AMERIKIA?
no its not time, you stupid idiot. Dumb idiots/individuals trying to change the world withyour own PERSONAL OPINIONS. You are running out of time to save your own life. AND YOU ARE THE STUPID IGNORANT INDIVIDUAL THAT THINKS YOU ARE AS IMPORTANT AND AS INTELLIGENT AS THE LAW OF THE LAND, BUT YOU NEED TO SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN AND GET OUT OF THE WAY OF STEADY WORK THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE YOU FFKN GREEDY BTCCCH
How about more and clearer powers to the states and local governmnet so we have better representation? (and this is coming from a liberal)
How about proportional representation for the house?
How about only allowing one month of campaigning before an election to limit the amount of money needed to be raised form special interests?
the states have proportional representation in the house, based on the population of the state at a given time (i think it's .01% or something along those lines) most of the state populations don't change drastically enough to change the amount of reps they have in the house
We have direct representation which is why we have only 2 parties (each race comes down to only 2 candidates) in Europe they have Proportional representation which allows for multiple parties. This small change would greatly help the quality of representation because rather than your state having a couple of Democrats and a couple of republican reps that dont talk to each other your state would have a green party, a libertarian, a religious conservative, a socialist that would be forced to work together because no one party would ever have a majority.
Sorry Fareed... You are the biggest idiot I have ever met. A socialist at heart, you have never had a "real job". Did you "consult" with Obama on this one too? Did you have breakfast with your buddy Soros? Sad, really sad, that CNN would keep you on the payroll.
hey mike, just to let you know, glenn beck has been cancelled, so the crazy "george soros is satan" nonsense probably won't hold up anymore
The problem is not with the Constitution. It's with people looking for ways around it.
Hell yes its time! I'm tired of these backwards looking "patriots" wearing their colonial hats and constantly quoting the Constitution as if its the word of God. As good as the Constitution is, don't forget it was written by men, just men, who believed that women shouldn't vote and black people were meant to be slaves.
It matters little if the Country is a republic, a democracy, how brilliant our Founders were, or what any one person now thinks is the right way to run the Country. What is important is having an open, rational discussion about whether the current system of the US government is up to date and working as well as it should, and if it isn't, what will be required to fix it. If Constitutional revisions or a complete rewrite are necessary for the betterment of the Country, then so be it. If Americans are too small minded, too afraid, or too uninterested to undertake this task, then maybe you deserve what you get.
I'm an American, but I've recently chosen to live in another country because I cannot believe or put up with the mindset of some of the so-called patriots with big mouths who want to send America back to the dark ages. The United States must move forward in a reasonable, rational way or the dream will eventually die. There is competition from other countries out there folks! All the petty bickering I see here and everywhere else is setting the tone for an earlier National demise. You need to get over it and get on with the real work of political participation, negotiation, and compromise until consensus can be achieved. There is a lot of work to do.
1. Abolition of the Electoral College
2. Abolition of Campaign Fundraising – equal amount of public monies given to each candidate; no more
3. Abolition of the Fed and IRS
Incorporate Some Basic Revolutionary Tenets:
1- Lawyers are banned from existence.
2- Politicians and political parties are banned from existence, government leaders are chosen based on academic credentials, test scores, and where they hail from. In cases where many candidates exist, a lottery system is used to chose. They serve for 3 years, at the end of the three, they may be re-elected for 5 more years by 52% of their constituents voting for them, but they may not campaign.
3- Prisons are restricted for violent crimes. Floggings, fines, forced destitution, public humiliation, and community service are acceptable punishments for all else.
4- The drug war is over, and not to be refought. After 100 years of failed attempts, we acknowledge that we cannot change humanity, it can be regulated, and taxed, but not criminalized. Taxes are used purely for public education and rehab.
5- Glenn Beck, Al Sharpton, Kim Kardashian, and all of the Palins are to be banned from the media, and public appearrances, or they must forfeit their citizenship and move to Paraguay (whom we must pay to take them off our hands).
6- All college tuition rates must scale back to a maximum of $6000 per annum.
7- The defense budget must always be less than the education budget.
the constitution is great it is the corrupt rotten government that doesn't follow the constitution that needs to get thrown out the window along with its zexual pervert judges!!
What an idiot.
A thoughtful and provocative column like this deserves better responses than it is getting here. The Electoral College and the Senate are, indeed, undemocratic. But perhaps the biggest problem we face is the system of single-member district, plurality voting that we use. It prevents the development of viable third and fourth parties, resulting in two amorphous and irresponsible coalition parties that cannot be challenged effectively. If we could adopt proportional representation in the House, many of the other problems could be addressed more successfully.
Fareed – You know very little about the Constitution, it's underpinnings and what the founders meant when they wrote it.
Go away; you're irrelevant.
Wow.. I can see that it is becoming appparent very quickly that -probaly 90% of the folks "sounding off" do not even have a beginners knowledge of history, civics or our great constitution. There is NO way I would support having the common ignorance rule.
If you don't like the constitution get the fuck out. The only change we need is the return of slavery
We got through the great depression with the one we have. That's good enough for me.
You don't seem to remember the court packing incident with FDR. The Constitution almost prevented us from getting through the depression.
This article is a joke. Frankly, I believe opening up social media outlets as a platform for suggestions on how to frame a nation is insane! Now I cannot speak for Iceland, but America has become a nation of historical illiterates; completely devoid of even the most remote semblance of understanding with regard to the contents of of our constitution. I was recently hosting an medical intern (not an uneducated person mind you) and she could not name the current Vice President of the United States. Yet she lived on Facebook when she was not working, so I have to assume she would put her two cents in, should she be allowed to make recommendations for a new constitution. I find that scary! I don't want the uninformed masses making recommendations for how my country should be framed. Allowing them to vote is bad enough. In fact if any changes are made, I think we allow only tax-paying citizens to vote. Move to Iceland if this idea appeals to you, but the masses in this nation cannot be trusted simply because they lack the basic knowledge of how our way of life was created and how it will be sustained.
The US Constitution doesn't seem to work for people who are not from the US, or grew up in a third world culture, and don't really understand the concepts enshrined in one of the greatest documents ever written by humans. Hence people like Zakariah they always seem to want to fix it for us. No thanks. If you don't like it, you're welcome to go off somewhere and build a country that suits your needs.
Your half black leader is going to loose epic style. Thank GOD for the bad economy. Try and change the constitution and you will have a war on your hands. Lots of us with no leader ready to fight.
If you didn't understand why it’s important that you are educated, functionally literate and a voter read these posts.
Yes we should.
Amendment #1...
No more Muslims on CNN.
It is looking like aljazeera
Absolutely. The Constitution has always had too many flaws. The 3 people who essentially wrote it, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson all directly and indirectly acknowledged that in their time.
My 3 Changes:
1). Under no circumstances may an individual sign away his or her consitutional rights and guarantees. Any document drafted that does attempts such action, will be considered invalid on all legal levels from Federal to State to City, even military, etc.
2). Only individual Americans and no other can lobby government. This includes groups of any sorts, companies, corporations, governments and the like. Only a single individual Americans can be considered an individual legally able to lobby governmkent. Governments, corporations, groups, etc. cannot lobby any form of government operating in the U.S. Or publically funded, administrated, staffed or influenced entity operating in any way as a government, or that could, or has the potential to influence any form of U.S. goernment in any way. All lobbying of any form of a U.S. government can only be done by an individual and must be done openly and in a public forum. This includes issues of national defense and security. Any legislation passed by government can be over ruled by public vote. Public vote can be called at anytime provided at least 1/2 of the registered voting population registers for a public vote. Over ruling legislation can only be done with a 2/3rds majority vote. Public vote superceeds the Supreme Court and any decision that institution may hand down. (Essentially total public control, not institutional control). The public may also remove any member of Congress or the House via the same public voting forum at any time.
3). Campaign finance reform. Only individual humans can donate to campaigns. Only 1 dollar may be donated to any one campaign. Public broadcasting will be funded by government so that government may allow equal air time to anyone that seeks election. A life sentence in prison is automatically assign to anyone violating this principle if found guilty.
Those are the 3 I would begin with. Wish we could suggest more.
Muammar Gaddafi is looking for a second in command. Perhaps you could apply?
I do not trust our politicians these days to make the level headed, practical and intelligent decisions necessary to amend or revise a document of such importance.
We have term limits for our President and the ability to throw out the Representatives every two years and Senators every six. Why should legislation be exempt from a regular review and chance for elimination? Old, irrelevant, and cumbersome legislation and taxes ought to be revisited on a ten or twenty year basis or allowed to expire. If Congress deems the laws still useful then they are maintained, but if not, they get the axe.
Yes! I definitely think it's about time we fix our Constitution. While I'm fine with the makeup of Congress, the Electoral College has long overstayed its welcome.
Three amendments?
1) Get rid of the electoral college, and replace it with a 'one man, one vote' system. It's wrong how one candidate for president can beat another with less votes from the people.
2) Get rid of term limits for the President. Every seat in government that there is an election for is without term limits, except for the President. I believe that FDR was our best President, and one reason for that is the fact that he spent 3 full terms in office.
3) Require Congress to pass a budget each year before anything else.
Obama has caused an enormous amount of harm to this country and he hasn't even completed his first term yet. And you would like him to remain indefinitely? Maybe you should move to the Middle East where despots lord it over their subjects for 20, 30 and sometimes 40 years...
unbelievable the stuff that gets thru 'editor's these days. just wow.
really?
why don't you walk off a cliff.
The Founders that wrote the Constitution did so to prevent just the sort of mob rule-by-twitter envisioned in this article. As can be clearly seen by the suggestions made by Icelanders – free healthcare, criminalizing corporate speech, and banning sharkfin fishing – given the opportunity, the mob will vote themselves largesse at the expense of their fellow citizens, or vote away the liberties of their fellows. This is why we have a federal republic, limited in scope and power, and where the States are represented in the Senate, and in the Electoral College.
Wherever this puke is from, he needs to go back, take a pole and Twit from there. His hero Barak is doing his best to scrap the Constitution anyway, followed closely by Republicans. Bozo
I gave you my answer and why and got told I had already answered. Is that what you do when you don't like the answer?
Is that the way of the left?
Anyone who feels 2 senators from each state is not a fair representation does not understand the constitution nor the founding of this nation.
The more I think about the way the world has gone in the last 200 plus years I'm amazed at how well the constitution was written.
Also when I think about the current crop of People in the "know", both in the USA and abroad I'm amazed that we would consider giving them a chance to muck it up.
The Bush Supreme Court has already rewritten the Constitution, hasn't it? It's no longer "We the People," but "We the Corporations....."
Mr. Zakiria I belive i will stick with the orginaly document and the method for changing it..how about you stick with your day job.
Allow big states to divide into smaller ones; enlarge the House of Representatives and base it on proportional representation; turn Senators into state ambassadors; add a third branch of Congress based on tax rates; create a third level of government between the Federal and the state (Provinces); use a Federal Executive Council like Switzerland's. Please see my blog http://13radicalchanges.wordpress.com/
One of the newest constitutions in our part of the world is Canada's Constitution Act, 1982.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
I prefer "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person..." over the Pursuit of Happiness. It's less hedonistic IMO.
"soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens" sounds a lot easier than trying to sift through comments from 300,000,000 citizens in the US. Besides, after reading many of the posts on CNN.com, it appears to me that far too many Americans would suggest that our new constitution ban Muslims and Islam, or make it legal to carry a machine guns at all times, or write in laws against abortion. The general american public is too stupid to be allowed that much power.
This is a ridiculous article. Iceland's population is 318.4K, 93% Icelandic; US population 311,590K with 3 major ethic groups and many others that have populations in the US greater than Iceland's total population. This factor of 1000 difference is the equivalent of comparing getting consensus in a classroom of 37, to getting consensus in Fenway Park (37K)! The US is the 4th most populous country in the world... CNN needs to stop writing articles that compare the US to countries that are smaller in population than most major metropolitan areas in the US... Please stop contributing to the overall stupidity in the US with your dumb comparisons!!!!
You Change Or Mess With Are Constitution In America It There Will Be War American Civil War 2 Or Revolutionary War 2 There Is No Other Answers
Bloodthirsty warmongering is really the answer to trying to improve the constitution? You prove my earlier point.
REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!
Write whatever Constitution you want as long as you go back where you came from. Moron
Lets Change IT!!! more like Update it & make it better. I♥America
I second much of what WD Noble wrote. The country is so polarized, the two extremems dominating discussion and spewing so much hatred, I just can't see it working. It would fall into the wrong hands and make things much worse.
What clearly is needed is to find a way to take the big money out of politics. Our leaders obtain massive amounts of money to get elected, and that must and always will lead to corruption. They are bought and paid for, and investors expect a return on their investment. This isn't democracy. An amendment that banned corporate, union, and other organization's contributions to elections is a start. Probably should ban all money in elections. Would need to create some kind of public forum where candidates expressed their views, a national TV hour of some kind.
I agree. it's not democracy. it's capitalism. something that isn't anywhere in the constitution, although most Americans would probably assume it is.
Each state has a vote, zack. Its the United STATES... not free-for all voting. And thank God for that. I don't want states like mine (NJ) overshadowing Wisconsin, Missouri etc. And I do NOT want the immigrants (criminals for circumventing our borders) in this country to have voting rights, neither them NOR their U.S. born kids. They all should be sent back. Don't like it Zack? Then go back to India / Pakistan and work for Al jazeeera.
Hi Dave,
immigrants are not automatically criminals. Some go a hard path in legally entering the country, distinguishing themselves and getting a Green Card and eventually citizenship. And everyone born on US soil is a citizen, that's the law. That's why your ancestors are not criminals and illegal aliens. Go and ammend the constitution if you don't like it.
Al Jazeera is not in India.
1. The annual fiscal year budget of the United States for any year cannot contain more expenditures than the income to be received in that fiscal year.
2. If a balanced budget is not passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President by the first date of any fiscal year, all Congressmen/women, Senators, The President, and their staff members will receive 50% pay and per diem for the following 30 days. If a balanced budget is not passed by 31 days following the beginning of the year, all Congressmen/women, Senators, The President and their staff members will receive $0 pay and per diem until 14 days after a balanced budget is passed.
3. No child born in the United States shall become a citizen of the United States unless one or both parents are US Citizens and any parent residing in the United States is a legal US citizen or resident alien.
Kathy, Economics 101 dictates that governments should be able to use every tool available to manage the economy, including (oh the horror) raising taxes and running deficits when absolutely necessary.
You Change Or Mess With Are Constitution In America It There Will Be War American Civil War 2 Or Revolutionary War 2 There Is No Other Answers
you justin are the only question. what we need more than a new constitution is a way to undo all the frontal lobotomies that you crakers have
How about proportional representation in the house?
We have direct representation, which is why we have only 2 parties (each race comes down to only 2 candidates) in Europe they have Proportional representation which allows for multiple parties. This small change would greatly help the quality of representation because rather than your state having a couple of Democrats and a couple of republican reps that dont talk to each other your state would have a green party, a libertarian, a religious conservative, and a socialist that would be forced to work together (crazy i know) because no one party would ever have a majority.
Oh yes, and Europe has been doing so well with that. lol In reality anyone can run for office and they do not need to belong to any party. However, a person would have to have independent funding while running for office if they were to shun the major parties.
The fact that the premise for the article is what Iceland is doing, negates the value in this piece whatsoever. Iceland as a nation is a failure, both socially and economically.
Our nation needs to get the basic rights correct first, before thinking up new ones. This process that Iceland is going through is merely a method to distract the general public from the real issues.
Who could we trust to rewrite the Constitution ?? There is no one around with the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. If our congress runs true to form, they would turn the rewriting over to the same lobbyists who write the legislation they pass every day.
Ask the people through Facebook, YouTube and the like. Are you freakin' kidding. Ask the people who watch Reality TV and take it for fact. The people who are more concerned about some Kardashian sibling or some New Jersey whore than they are about our country and our government? Please be serious.
You want change institute term limits for Senators and Representatives
It's called the amendment process. The writers knew that things would change and so put in a mechanism to so just that. FZ is simply a fool. The reason the US is the greatest country in history is because of the Constitution. It is not some dusty, dead document that needs to be re-written simply to reflect the whims of a fickle populous. It is a transcendental document, those who don;t understand this are short-sighted to the point they can;t see the wall they are about to walk in to.
The men who wrote the constitution not only saw the growth of this country they planned for it in this document. The same men later went on to describe how we could destroy it. Much of what they warned has come to pass, instead of changing it how about we abide by it.
The Electoral College has been under fire for years. It's a silly system, and if you think about it voter turnout could improve by eliminating it. Why would a Democrat from Texas, lets say, want to vote when the district will be voting republican? Either eliminate presidential term limits or impose congressional limits, I'm for the latter.
And as long as we're never asking congress for a declaration of war, may as well clean that one up too.
But as many have stated, if the Constitution were to be revised, our idiot representatives would want it revised based on what their part wants, not what's best for the nation.
1 term for everyone.
The United states of America is not a direct democracy. The founders of our constitution believed that the average person was not literate enough to directly elect a president therefore we have the electoral college. What was true then still stands.
The first thing that needs to be in it would be that government can't spend anymore than it take in.
Everyone who has read this article has became dumber, I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul
take your points and your piece of crap god too
Let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history; it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years. The U.S. Constitution’s greatness lies in its core principle.
Mr. Zakaria he is showing his true colors !!
yes. his colors are red white and blue, yours are just white, you invader
1. Term Limits: No member of the House or Senate shall stand for re-election more than once.
2. Campaign Finance: Only individual citizens may contribute to campaigns, limited to $500 adjusted for inflation.
3. Defense spending shall remain at or below 3% GDP or 20% of federal tax collections, whichever is lower, except where war has been declared by Congress.
Your third point is awesome. 20% of the GDP is (according to CIA World Factbook; USA (2010 figures)): $14.66 Trillion. Let's do the math:
1.466e+13 * .20 = 2.932e+12 (2,932,000,000,000). That's trillion. 20% is extremely generous of you, but may not be necessary.
Total revenue: $2.092 Trillion (with a T). 2% would assume:
2e+12 * .02 = $40 Billion. The US spent more than that on Libya, alone.
I like your thoughts, but working with these figures may get a little difficult when it's actually time to do something. And "whichever is less" is always 2% of the budget.
Ok, I switched the math all up. That's the problem with not being able to see the post while I'm typing. I see where you're going with this. It looks good on paper, but so does communism.
yes, socialism is what we need and are after, so move on
Interesting timing – right after NBC edits the Pledge of Allegiance............Just before the U.S. Open, at the beginning of the telecast, NBC aired a patriotic montage featuring video clips of national monuments and soldiers raising an American flag, cut around a group of school-aged children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Only during the pledge, the phrases "under God" and "indivisible" were edited out, twice. The piece was supposed to play up the whole patriotism theme with the golf course hosting our national championship so close to our nation's capital and all.
Is this a trial balloon? To cover unconstitutional actions of administration and blame the constitution of being out of date? What other purpose may this article have? Any ideas on what brought an attack on the Constitution by "progressives"?
How about a revisit of F.D.R's 1944 second bill of rights?
Hmm. It parallels 1936 Soviet Constitution (see Wiki) which guaranteed to the Soviet citizens the right to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits. We know how it ended and how many millions died as a result. Low average life expectancy (a good chance to be shot for disagreeing with government), declining population, etc.
This is exactly the problem with current administration: they think they can do better with the same failed ideas.
get your lame out of the way and i'll show you, you capitalist
What the hell does it matter what we write into a possibly revised constitution? It's just going to be modified into whatever the Supreme Court is going to want it to say anyway. For example, I voted in California FOR Proposition 187, the one about illegal immigration, and it passed into law. The bloody Supreme Idiots struck it down, saying "it's unconstitutional."
WTF??? I thought the PEOPLE ran what was law or not, not a handful of judges who tell We the PEOPLE what we can do and can't. To me, it's ALL BS anyway! What does it matter who or WHAT the people vote for anymore?
I now understand the level of voter apathy that has infested "our" country! What's the use in voting at all???
@ GrandpaRG – "The bloody Supreme Idiots struck it down, saying "it's unconstitutional."
WTF??? I thought the PEOPLE ran what was law or not, not a handful of judges who tell We the PEOPLE what we can do and can't."
This is where you misunderstand the structure of the federal system. It is a constitutional republic, wherein the majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority where such a law would violate the rights granted that minority under the constitution. If you could do that then all majorities would seek only to shore up their own advantaged position. Go read the opinion, they don't just arbitrarily vote a certain way to piss you off.
There is a very good reason smaller states have the same number of Senators as large ones and the reason has been the same from the beginning: to prevent the large states from running roughshod over the smaller ones. Congress is where the "majority rule" pluses and minuses are viewable in plain sight and a good reminder why a pure democracy (instead of a representative one) is a bad idea, especially for anyone not in the majority.
The Constitution of the United States is a timeless, living document, which creates not only the foundation of the American way of life, but an example for the rest of the world that our democratic form of government works: by the people and for the people.
In fact it is possible to change the constitution, but extremely difficult to do so. Three-fourths of the states have to ratify any amendments to the constitution, all with equal voice (regardless of the population of the state). Amendments are the only way this document has ever and will ever change, period. "Starting from scratch" with a living document will only happen if the country is once again at civil war. While there should be amendments to restore state's powers, we should keep in mind that six amendments were passed in congress but have yet to be ratified.
As a born American, it's offensive to the very fibers of American society for someone who migrated to the United States (regardless of origin) to propose that we change the one thing that makes America–America. Immigrants should admire the ways of the country they have joined, or return home and try to change theirs.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a father of a dual-citizen and a husband of a legal immigrant. I have all-due respect for those who love our country as much as I do and move their entire world to join it. Please, Mr. Zakaria, respect those born on these lands and our history (good and bad).
Why do I get the feeling that there is a huge disconnect between your feelings and reality ?
NO! NO! NO!
While it is true, The Constitution as a whole has flaws, some that have been fixed by amendment, some that are artifacts of the time they were written, NO! Do NOT REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION!
Not because of the flaws that exist, but because of the Americans who would direct its content. Either, we would have a document with hundreds of wherefores, why fors, and except fors, or we would end up with a document that had markedly LESS freedoms than we currently enjoy.
Mostly, I feel a LARGE and VOCAL block of well intentioned, but highly meddlesome people would CURTAIL the INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES I currently hold dear.
To be BLUNT, I DO NOT WANT CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANT EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS writing ANYTHING RESEMBLING A CONSTITUTION.
I LIKE being a HERETIC! I LIKE being a MALCONTENT! And I LIKE BEING A MISANTHROPE! I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE A BUNCH OF BIBLE THUMPING BUSYBODIES DICTATING MY PRIVATE LIFE!
Oh, by the way, Sharia law has even been longer around than the constitution, its rules are even more outdated, and its followers are even more fervent than you guys about not changing it.
Face it guys, there is no more inherently unclean meat, and there are no more militias (outside of Montana). The world is a different place now.
Wow this discussion has exploded with vitriol and ill thought out proposals that lack a fundamental understanding, in addition to a few good suggestions. I will instead focus on some things I would like to see changed that don't directly affect substantive rights in one way or another...
Structural Changes:
- Min-Max levels for the number of constituents per representative (Following Zakaria's numbers if you kept the same ratio you should have 4,875 reps total, but I would be willing to stipulate to 1,000 due to improvements in roads and communications. This was actually proposed as the second of twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights but was never ratified)
- Return of election of senators to state legislatures
- Requiring elected officials to hand over non-subsistence assets to a blind trust so they can't make policy choices based on their E-Trade Account Balance.
- Clearer rules on conflicts of interest and recusal of representatives voting on laws that directly benefit their interests.
- Abolition of personal income tax, let the US Gov't get its money directly from states...
Practice Changes:
- Capaign Contributions from non-corporeal persons commercial speech and not political speech (which allows them to be regulated by the federal government instead of protected by the highest standards of the first amendment)
- Waaaaaaay more use of the amendment process (I am looking at you "Substantive Due Process". Contraceptive, reproductive, and marriage rights are not mentioned anywhere, but they could be)
Less running of activist groups (children) to the federal government (Parent) for laws to prevent another group (sibling) from doing something that bothers them (breaking its toys). Try working in YOUR state and not telling people who live in others how to run their business.
- The federal government stop regulating everything under the sun through the commerce clause.
- The Supreme Court actually acknowledging the 10th Amendment
- Reversion to people saying "The United States ARE..." instead of "The United States IS"
That is just to start for me.
Be careful what you wish for.
The Republicans wrote a new Iraqi Constitution after Saddam was overthrown. It included clauses that outlawed unions and allowed foreign oil companies to operate in Iraq without any oversight from the Iraqi government. That's the Constitution we would get if Sarah Palin or John Boner was in charge of the rewrite.
Anyone else get a virus warning when they click this article? Anyways, our constitution is pretty much just a worthless piece of paper now that we let our government take away most of our rights in the guise of our safety from the terrorists
For one thing, this is a horrible idea, because all the partisan internet morons will group together with the other partisan internet morons and effectively turn this country either into a Christian theocracy or a Utopian society, depending on which side can get more partisan internet morons.
But personally, I would recommend the following:
1: End the two-party system and the Electoral College and go towards something like an Israeli or Polish list system.
2: Make the Finnish education system the official model for the United States.
3: Put an end to the "Moral police." Legalize and regulate prostitution, sports betting, and low-level drugs. Just like that, the debt would be virtually cut in half.
BY the way, by stating "Should we update the constitution" implies it has never been updated. This is completely wrong. It has been and will continue to be, in the manner in which the Constitution allows. If you like another countries Constitution/Rule of Law, move there. Until then, do NOT denigrate the system that allowed you to have the most liberties of any country on the planet. Oh, and stop watching television, period.
I think that we should create a strong dollar
that is backed by some physical asset ( it doesn't have to be silver or gold or copper.)
The reason why it is important for a strong dollar backed by some physical asset is that the United States would get a good credit rating, the US would be trusted by other countries to have a strong and sound financial system, and that it would guarantee the citizens of the US that we have a strong dollar that has a high purchasing power. The Constitution states that only silver and gold coin should be a legal tender in payment of debts. However, the United States in 1787 only had four million people in it, which is one percent of today's population, ( which is something like 310 million people.) Therefore, we as a country has grown a lot economically since 1787, therefore we have paper money in order to make trade a lot easier. This doesn't mean that we can't circulate our paper dollars without the backing of some physical asset. To summarize up my comment, I think we should have an amendment made to the Constitution that makes sure that the government keeps the dollar strong, and that the amendment should also state that it should be by law that we as a nation being a global reserve currency should keep our dollar backed by some physical asset to guarantee foreign nations and the citizens of the United States that we have a currency that is strong and ringing true here in the US and in other parts of the world.
Three Potential Amendments ?
1. Repell the 13th Amendment, which abolshed slavery
2. Repell the 14th Amendment, protecting citizenship to everyone born in the United States
3. Amend the constitution such that marriage is defined strictly between a Man and a Woman.
What don't think those? Well neither do I. But those are three clear examples of the kind of constitutional amendments that could be achieved in a nations where simple majority rule was the rule of law.
Don't mess with the Constitution.
Well put I think
The Contitution has worked for over 200 years. Old Saying: IF IT WORKS, DON'T FIX IT!!!
Here are a list of things that need to be changed in the constitution.
1) dummy proof all the amendments to make them more definitive and precise to prevent the gov't from finding "loopholes" that essentially let them ignore rights when it suits them. The entire Bill of Rights needs this but the prime example of a completely ignored amendment is the 10th. If this amendment was enforced then we wouldn't have an enormous federal gov't.
2) balanced budget amendment
3) term limits on congress and the supreme court
4) removal of corporate funding for elections
5) money caps on election campaigns
6) federal gov't being limited to national protection/enforcement of constitution/infrastructure
7) abolishment of political parties
2) balanced budget amendment – Good Idea, I like this one too
3) term limits on congress and the supreme court – I Don't see why you think this is needed. What is it that you want this to correct in the current system?
I would expect term limits to limit our exposure to the SAME morons indefinitely. It's inevitable that new dumb@sses will get elected...but it is common sense that the longer someone is exposed to large amounts of power the more likely they are to become corrupt and/or abuse that power. I understand that the way it works now is that they have to be re-elected so in theory of people wanted them gone all they'd have to do is vote someone else in but with our corrupt election format now with corporate and special interest group funding once a lackey is in place it's nearly impossible to replace them.
All this guy has done is prove he never took a civic s course. (In this country anyway)
But if Iceland is doing it .......
Hes saying if other countries are considering it why not us? The Constitution is extremely outdated lets grow up and fix the things we know are broken
Feel free. Amendments are allowed; knock yourself out.
The founders were smart, secular intellectuals and philosophers. I wouldn't trust any of our current leaders to draft a reasonable, fair constitution.
The existing system was designed to balance the needs of very different states. Perhaps the biggest problem with government today is that our policiticans spend most of the their time in Washington D.C. An amendment to require that they can only be in Washington for 2 weeks twice a year and must spend the balance of their time in their home districts would correct a lot of problems.
Lobbyists would be hard put upon to have more influence then local residents/business owners.
Corruption and back room deals would be tougher because long distance communications could always be tapped or subject to freedom of information laws.
Lawmakers would remain true to their roots and would be more in touch with their district/state's needs.
Debates and committee meetings could be done by teleconference. (Even voting could.)
Term limits would be good as well.
I believe that most of our issues lie in the fact that our government, as a whole, encumbers itself when making policy and decisions because the "rule of the majority, restrained by the minority" nature of our bicameral legislature current separation of powers scheme. I'm certainly not suggesting that we do away with these structures, only tweak them a bit. I truly believe one model would be the British system. Without being too detailed, when a party gets elected into the majority (by the voters!) they have the opportunity to pass their agenda! What a concept! Some folks are going to say, "Well what if their agenda doesn't work?" Guess what, they can call for elections and elect another party into power. Amazing! It makes a MP or Minister much more accountable to the public and more often. Secondly, in the 1950s, we amended campaign finance laws to read that parties can only contribute so much to a certain candidate. It still costs money to get elected, campaigns are extremely expensive. In the system we had before these reforms, a candidate campaigned in their district, state, country, etc and built a following. They would seek the nomination of their party and then they were able to kiss babies and shake hands. Following these reforms, we forced politicians to find other sources of money to fund campaigns, in stepped corporate American interests. There's no doubt that business being involved in politics was nothing new before these laws were passed, but there's also no doubt that the American people are smarter and more educated than they've ever been. They know that politicians must also craft policy that will get them the funds they need to get reelected. This single issue has made the parties more disparate within their own caucuses. If a political contributor was referred to the local or national party leader to discuss their advocacy of their important issue, the politician was free to think about policy making vice fundraising constantly and the party was MUCH more unified in the process because the candidate would be virtually required to advocate the party's platform or "go it alone" to get elected. Sure, even within that construct, there will be outliers. But you wouldn't have a single Senator (a la Joe Lieberman) wasting everybody's time threatening a filibuster and stalling crucial health care reform. Just one example among many.
I like our constitution just the way it is, thank you very much. The checks and balances are simply genius, and still completely effective.
we can keep that...just maybe get rid of some crappy stuff along the way
"The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent."
IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS!!! GET OVER IT!!
Based on the result of the presidential elections of the last 10 years, this country would destroy itself in minutes if it wrote a new constitution.
Mr. Zakaria, you have created a very welcomed discussion of the Constitution of the United States and I have spent most of my time after work reading the comments.
I do not agree that the Constitution of the United States of America should be revised [including the legal manner of revision = amendments].
The Constitution of the United States of America was written by a group of men whose average age was in their mid-thirties. These men created a document which created a balance of power within the federal government. These young men studied the evolved Constitutional Government of 18th Century Great Britain, the Democracy of Ancient Greece and that of a Confederation of Indian tribes. They wrote, argued, screamed, re-wrote, argued again, and eventually compromised in designing a written document which defined a balance of power – not only by creating the balance of three Branches of the Government, but also within each of the branches. While these young men recognized and applaud change, they also recognized the wisdom of not allowing instant change brought on by any current popular fear/charismatic leader/or misinformation.
Did they recognize that they made mistakes—through compromise? Yes, of course! And, most of those changes have been corrected by, but not limited to, The Bill of Rights, the prohibition of slavery & involuntary servitude, and the right of vote to women.
They created a balance of power which changes back and forth like a pendulum might. Sometimes one group has more power than another and then the pendulum sways back again.
I. The Judicial Branch of the United States of America government provides a life-term to each member of the Supreme Court. The older members balance out the power of the younger members. In that manner, some change in the interpretation is slowed.
II. The Executive Branch of the United States of America is limited to a four year term with the opportunity for just one more four year term [since FDR]. If the citizens feel the president is not doing the job, a new president can be elected after four years. There again is a balance within this branch. We have no “President for Life” nor a dictator.
III. The Legislative Branch of the United States of America is divided into two legislative bodies and these also are balanced.
• The Senate of the United States of America provides that 1/3 of the members are elected [or re-elected] every two years. They serve [are suppose to at any rate] their constituents for six years. That gives a balance within the legislative body – older ideas vs the newer ideas. There are also two elected from each State in the Republic…a balance between the State of New York and the State of Montana.
• The House of Representatives of the United States of America provides election for each member every two years.
Here is the balance. Our Constitution is designed to provide a framework from which laws and government can be maintained. It is a balance of the old and the new. It provides stability and yet a voice for new and “radical” ideas without falling to an instant change [which could be likened to “instant gratification”]. Change is possible without instant revolutionary change.
What is needed is the education of our electorate of the Constitution of the United States of America and the responsibility that the citizens continue to have towards their nation by electing adult men/women that know they have a job to accomplish once they arrive in our capital and get it done.
No, we do not need a new Constitution, but rather a resolve to see that it continues to grow and develop. It is an honor to be a citizen of the United States of America, Mr. Zakaria.
I do not want to be "global" as I am not impressed.
You want to re-write the constitution? It can be done. It's called making ammendments. Yes, it's a rathr long, rather tedious process, but it guarantees people will approach changes with caution, wisdom, and we won't let the ever changing winds of the world be our main guiding force.
We should ban political parties, hopefully eliinating partisanship
The Electoral College and representation in the Senate, and the House for that matter, is as it is because the federal government is a union of states, not a representation of individuals. Knowingly or not, Mr Zakaria highlights the difference between a democracy and a republic.
The reason each state has 2 represetnatives in the senate regardless of population is because that was supposed to be the voice of the "State". But now that they are elected popularly rather than appointed by the State legislature the federal govt has a monopoly of power. States have no say in matters. Same with the supreme court. They were never intended to "intepret" the constitution. That is the fox guarding the hen house.
Fareed Z. understands the Constitution. Those of you critical to his understanding are guilty of the very thing about which he writes. You believe that the Constitution is sacrosanct and that, since the Senate was designed to provide equality of states, it can NEVER be changed. This, though, is exactly his point – that institutions like the Senate SHOULD be reconsidered in light of modern realities.
When the Constitution was promulgated, the difference in population between the most populated and least populated states was a few hundred thousand people. The current difference between the most and least populated states is TENS OF MILLIONS. Fareed Z. is suggesting that the current situation warrants taking another look at the Consitution.
To attack his argument by suggesting that he doesn't understand the Constitution is simply an ignorant ad hominem argument. As Thomas Jefferson said,
"I think that once a generation, every 30 years, we should hold a new Constitutional Convention and work out the things that do not function properly in our political arrangements."
So, did Thomas Jefferson fail to understand the Constitution as well?
With respect... have we revised the Constitution every 30yrs or so? No. Ask yourself instead this question...why not? Is it not possible that Jefferson was wrong and there has been no need?
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry.
All you need to know about the NWO here:
nwosurvivalguide.com
Awesome Patrick Henry quote!
"Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of eveybody else." Frederic Bastiat
"Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?" This is a dumb and misleading question. We already have a system in place for 'updating' the constitution, they're called amendments. To be more relevant to the what Iceland is doing, the question should have read: "Is it time to scrap the U.S. Constitution?" Of course the answer to that question is 'no' – that's why we allow amendments to the constitution, so we don't have to scrap the document and start all over again every few generations. It must be a slow news day, huh?
There is nothing wrong with the constitution, the problem is the people that enforce and interpret the constitution for their benefit
1. One-person-one-vote: Replace the electoral college with one-person-one vote.
2. Proportional Representation: Create “at large” seats in the House and Senate to make these bodies more proportionally representative (like Germany’s parliament) to reduce or even eliminate the “waste your vote” fear that artificially creates our polarized two party system and to more equitably include the votes of Washington DC and US territory residents.
3. Balance State/Local Budgets: Forbid deficit spending at the State and Local level, except for one-time bond-funded projects like building/enhancing schools, bridges, water systems and other core forms of infrastructure. At the same time eliminate all laws that forbid state and local, elected authorities from levying respective state and local taxes: The cause of such deficits.
Sorry, can't resist. I think the oldest legislature (continuously functioning) in existence is the Tynwald (Isle of Man). In structure it is very much like that of Iceland and Norway before they (respectively) junked their upper chambers, I believe.
Rewrite the Constitution to render it more amenable to the Fareed Zakaria doctrine? I don't think so.
white christian clone
our constitution needs to be updated to the 21st century.
firstly, it is my opinion that there is a need for a 2nd bill of rights for the people of our country. this should be modeled on FDR's proposed second or economic bill of rights.
1. right to a guaranteed employment with a decent wage
2. freedom from unfair cooperatives or monopolies
3. right for every family to have a decent home
4. right to adequate medical care and opportunity to receive enjoy good health
5. right to a good education for all americans
6. right to protection from fears of old age, sickness, and unemployment.
7. right to have clean breathable air, drinkable water and healthy environment in order to live in
Secondly, there needs to be a equal rights amendment, which makes discrimination based upon sex illegal. The supreme court has used the due process clause as a way to balance equal rights but it is not totally clear.
Thirdly, there needs to be term limits on congressmen and senators. Too long have they seen politics as a career instead of a service to the american people. for congressmen a limit of 4 terms while senators 2 terms
fourthly, a balanced budget amendment should be proposed. This country has seen debts and deficits that have skyrocketed over the past years. the amount of deficit that the country should have in a given year should at least be half a trillion dollars.
fifthly, a so called privacy amendment should be proposed. the government should not dictate what one does either in their home especially on their computers, or with their bodies. people have a certain expectation of privacy that the government should not interfere in certain areas beyond their control.
So in other words you want the right to have everything you want and want other people to pay for it.
I seriously laugh at your first clause... the right for a job and a fair wage... America is a FREE MARKET. You can come from poverty and make yourself "rich".... it is called education and being proactive.
Enough of this crutching society. Get rid of entitlements and stop spending trillions of dollars in forms of international welfare programs. Stop the wars and bring back LIBERTY, FREEDOM, and PRIVACY!!!
power to the poor. screw you and the welfare to your banks and corporations you "capitalism eats their young" lunkhead
I second Marcus. No one owes anyone anything. Get off your lazy ass and work for it!
zacharia: and who will be in charge of rewriting the constituion... facebook citizens, or you? ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes... Note the constitution is not a populist democratic document – we were not set up to be a populist democracy... we are a republic and the 10th amendment needs more friends not less. If we go back to our constitutional republic/federation roots – then you can change all the state constitutions you want... it allows for that. Why do liberals like you always want to change everything for everybody in teh USA? We are a big diverse country, and we should stay that way... what is good for New York is not good for Mississippi, and reverse. The fed gov't is there to ensure the "Rights of Man" via the Bill of Rights and is there to protect free trade between states and the borders... nothing more.
we are a republic and the 10th amendment needs more friends not less. – I strongly agree!!!
OH look! Another idiotic European exercise that Liberals want to duplicate.
enough of obama trying to take over America, let the revolution begin, stand for freedom not obama, all those liberals who work against us shall fall to the side as We THe People TAKE BACK AMERICA from the blackie anti-christ who shall fall to the revolution of the people, Dont Touch Our Freedom or Ye shall Feel the Wrath of We The People. God Bless America not the blackie wannabe obama.
Hey bigot! Yeah, you! Go wash your little Klan robe, it's soiled with the diarrhea coming out of your mouth. Don't like America? Get on a time machine and go back to your Apartheid South Africa, a.k.a. every Republican's wet dream. Every time one of you inbred racists makes a stupid comment like this, a US soldier that died defending this country from Fascism and Nazism in WWII spins in his grave.
Under no circumstances shall the U.S. Constitution be "updated"... in fact we should start FOLLOWING the Constitution. Our founding fathers created this to be amended but amended by means of thoroughly thinking about it and in the end it should NOT be amended...
NO. NOT NOW. NEVER.
In fact, we should start abiding by the U.S. Constitution!!!!
And as for the content of the post, interesting. I'm not sure I buy into the definition of democracy that Zakaria seems to be building on, but that would be a matter for discussion; as for the comments, well, Halloween seems to have come early this year....
The reason for a Senate where all states are represented equally is to prevent large states from being able to run roughshod over small states. It is an idea that helps to hold the union together and was a brilliant idea by the founders. The House of Representatives on the other hand DOES take population into account. So there is a balance.
Mostly the Constitution needs to be PROPERLY OBSERVED by the legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch. I would like to see an amendment to give the people an option to hold a recall election to remove a president, a congressman, or a judge from office. Too many judges legislate from the bench and too many politicians laugh at the will of the people instead of carry it out.
term limits serve as a balance between senators and representatives fighting for their reelection and a sense of stability so they don't feel as much pressure to vote based on polls and instead go with what they believe is right. Same concept for tenure and the judicial branch, we don't want these people swayed or influenced by pressures on their career, but rather want them to be comfortable is ruling as they see fit –they won't be thrown out by a political party in power simply because the political party doesn't agree with them.
The problem with all of this, is mainly the human problem. People are flawed and ignorant, in christianity it's referred to as original sin, we are all fallible. Political parties will lie to maintain their power and cause their followers to, for lack of a better phrase, freak out about an issue they have been manipulated into believing is significant when it's only a shell game, a means to advance another agenda.
The constitution may need to be amended from time to time, and normally social pressure will lead to that result. It's slow, but it's steady. What we do need to see are perhaps term limits for every position in the House and Senate, I don't mean how it is now, I mean that one person can only serve, let's say twelve years, then they must leave. Accomplish what they can, then pass the torch. Give them one or two reelections then kick them out. A career politician is a recipe for corruption.
We need to limit the influence of outside sources, lobbying is grandma calling her senator or rep, not some paid suit representing 'interests.' The tax code needs to be simplified; the way people form small businesses needs to be simplified and streamlined. If that's what helps our country maintain our quality of life, then that's what the government should be enabling. Government should also be embracing new technologies to make government more efficient, less waste. Same goes for medicaid and medicare. If we're moving to a universal health care in about two years, why not get rid of medicaid and medicare? Simplify these programs and we remove the fraud and waste.
Too often we see the private sector and public sector as at odds with each other. The truth is they are all connected. Why not have government infrastructure, even online infrastructure, that helps non-profits partner with each other to meet the needs of the mentally ill / homeless / less advantaged –the effect will be like adding ripples into a wave.
Whenever people make something more complicated than is necessary, it's usually so someone can take advantage of it.
I want to conclude that it has been a pleasure reading most of the posts here, many were well articulated and contributed to the discussion. It was a wonderful change of pace from what I've come to expect from posts in general. cheers
Try to remember that the states came together as a type of alliance for mutual protection etc. and to give more power or representation to more populated states would basically nullify that agreement and be grounds for any state to succeed from the union(and rightly so).Giving everyone a direct vote would ensure the collapse of the U.S. into either a socialist dictatorship(fascism) or a breakup of the union(collapse).Obviously CNN advocates the former because it is owned by the powerful global corperate elitists that want more power.WE LIVE IN A FASCIST COUNTRY already,look at what TIME-Warner owns:
TIME-WARNER TBS – AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling
Come on you ove rthinking elitists. OUR constitution is what made the U.S. and it's freedoms, and form of govt the envy of the world. It is what brought us to a superpower in only a couple hundred years. Why would you even think of messing with that. As for the one man one vote rule, that is called MOB rule, it is what our founders wanted to avoid, we livve in a rep. republic, not a democracy. Let see the majority of Americans dont want chinese americans to vote, so, mob rules, a mojority says they cant and presto...well..u get the point..(unless u are a socialist lib)
because liberals don't want equal rights for minorities? I love / hate it when people confuse their perceived political enemy with their own party.
Absolutely time! Modern life has made most of our rights obsolete, and the government has used every loophole under the Sun to devalue them. My only fear, is that any new modification will probably be biased for the government or simply create new loopholes to be exploited.
Let us face it, the government does whatever it wants anyway, and if you question it, they just say "its classified". Only the rich and powerful can afford justice. If you are one of the lower classes you get a public defender that is not going to do a very good job.
If I were to add anything my first choice would be a requirement that any law created in the land be required to supply intent, clear method of interpretation, and expiration conditions.date. This would clear up the outdated laws, for the government to review and update, and keep judges from interpreting old laws into new laws.
No way in H- change the constitution! If you want to change it go somewhere else and create your own country! Leave it alone as is. Now one would agree on any and it would just turn this country into turmoil and ciaos!
That horse has bolted, there are 27 amendments to the constitution, one of which was ratified as recently as 1992. Of six unratified ones, 4 are still pending, so they could be 4 new amendments. LOL, 1 that failed was for equality of the sexes in 1982 and the other about the rights as voters. So #27 got passed so congressmen could get paid and two noble civil ones failed.
update it
Given the self-serving and arrogant way the government has bent the interpretation of the Constitution to its own favor in every single instance, to allow the same people the power to re-write it would be folly of an unparalleled sort.
Mr. Zakaria is exactly right when he talks about revising the constitution. There is too much blind reverence for it; never mind amending the current version – scrap it and write a new one from scratch. The document has many flaws that exacerbate the serious problems in the American political system. Every other democratic country in the world renews its constitution every now and again to keep pace with changes in society and America should follow suit.
Problem number one: it is too short, one of the shortest in the world. The constitutions of other democratic countries are far more detailed about how power is divided between central and local goverment. Also the "Bill of Rights" (in actuality, a series of amendments) is very barebones and does not incorporate modern ideas about human rights. The Establishment Clause, a single sentence, is no longer sufficient to protect the state against the bound and determined hordes of extreme "Christian" conservatives.
A new constitution should also have something to say about the role of political parties, money in politics, and mandate a proportional-representation voting system. It should also offer guidance on how the states organize their govermnments. California, a lession in what not to do when writing a constitution, must beg voters to approve spending plans each year because the legislators can't agree on anything. This is not a good situation to be in.
Next, we come to the Senate. Many countries in the world with bicameral parliaments limit the powers of the upper chamber. They may revise, review and delay but cannot block legislation outright. This is particularly important in the US because it is now virtually impossible to get anything through the Senate without divine intervention.
The Second Amendment is nothing short of dangerous and it has to be consigned to the dustbin of history. America is not a rural frontier society, but rather an urban cosmopolitan one. Moreover, constitutions are in the business of bringing people together and should not – as far as practicable – take stances on contentious social issues.
Please get an education, do true public service, and if all else fails, leave and take Mr. Zakaria with you. Look at the history of socialist governments – they only survived by force of arms, and they eventually fell (see the Soviet Union). Of course, once this form of government was instituted here, you would be one of the loudest complainers in trying to get the old system back.
The lack of knowledge what the U.S. Constitution is and what it means is astounding.... "Updating" the Constitution by either party will in the end only ruin what the country means. We already have politicians that bypass the Constitution.
Two words...
OBAMA and LIBYA.
STILL getting js virus attacks from this article. LOL
REWRITE OUR CONSTITUTION ? Are they crazy ? with the different power groups ,brokers and others such as NBC ,we wouldn't stand a chance for improvement , equality , freedom . The one thing that should be changed is to limit any body elected to no more than three terms total ( all elected positions) and we would start to see our elected officials voting for those bills that would definitely satisfy the majority of voters and not the power brokers and FAT CATS !
Amen!
Our politicians are to corrupt and incompetent to be trusted with even minor changes to the constitution. They wont give them selves term limits, they couldn't even give us a public option healthcare system or manage the budget.
war will happen
This article is one word...
SCARY.
RON PAUL 2012!!!
We are here by luck and chance. We have no right to update the constitution . We either accept it or leave this country
Mr. Zakaria is a biased liberal – he states that "conservatism has lost touch with reality", when it is the liberal, socialist agenda espoused by the left that thinks (despite all historical evidence) they can spend their way to prosperity.
Mr. Zakaria – your lack of knowledge is truly unnerving. With only the popular vote, a candidate would campaign in LA, New York, Chicago and Houston – and tell the rest of the country to go away and do what they are told. As one prior poster noted, we are not, and never have been a direct democracy – the United States of America is a republic. The premise of the differing levels of representation and length of term between the House and Senate was to provide balance – the House would be the more populist voice, and the Senate would hold the longer view and provide balance.
The Electoral College is necessary to maintain a balance between the states, because we are the United STATES.
Finally – I swore an oath to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Your argument is the same short-sighted cry raised by liberals when they can't get away with all the foolish ideas (ACORN anyone?) they they conceive in a continuing effort to hold power.
Mr. Zakaria – if you truly think the Constitution of the United States is unfair, please leave. We will not stand in your way.
No The time to revise the Constitution isnt now or ever! It is However time to up hold and live bye it! Polititions today have no respect for the Constitution! Example: The call bye polititions for stiffer gun control laws! This was the past week, due to U.S. firearms showing up in the hands of Mexican Cartels! Hey Morons, isnt imagration the issue? Seal our borders . Why do we pay billons for Imagration depts. that fail to do there job!
We are also inoccent untill proven guilty? How so? Get pulled over after a couple drinks and and fail to submit to a Breath Alyzer! I understand driving while intoxicated is wrong! But automatically, suspending a license prior to conviction is NOT Constitutional!. I could go on and on, All I can say is,it is pitifull! For the record I have a perfect driving record, a so does my wife! People need to speak up/ ! Why even bother with a Constitution that is totaly ignored? Our For Fathers are Ashamed!
God Bless America!
No, we don't need to change the constitution. It was written in principle-form. In other words, they were written in a way that would allow the citizens to make their own sound decisions. Principles are only guidelines that is proven to raise the quality of life. THEY ARE NOT LAWS. Unfortunately, we are a country full of "Jaywalking All-Stars". In conclusion, we need to upgrade America's resolve in returning to the free AND RESPONSIBLE society it used to be. It seems that our version of freedom can be compared to giving a 7 yr old 100 bucks and sending him to the candy store by himself. We cry freedom but we have no sense of discretion nor accountability.
My 3 amendments would be:
1. Abolish the electoral collage and make the president and vice president direct election based on total popular vote. (the electoral collage is nothing but a formality and a waste of taxpayer dollars today)
2. Modify the second amendment to exclude concealable firearms and assault weapons. (you want to shoot assault rifles? Join the army)
3. Limit Senators to 2 total terms, and limit House representatives to 5 terms.
I totally love how everyone keeps saying "we shouldn't touch the constitution"...you are making the author right when he says its taboo to talk about it. Republicans sure love to say "American's don't want that....thats not what America is about" when its convenient...yet they are scared to let American's discuss how to better the constitution. The founding fathers built in the ability to change it for a reason...that it would need to be updated.
And I actually visited Iceland...the attitude there is that its the governments responsibility to keep order (police), defend from invasion (army), and to keep its citizens healthy. (universal health care)
Its something that at least deserves a discussion...not to be immediately rejected and spit upon. After all, discussion is what adults do.
The easiest way to revise the Constitution would be every time an election is held three laws are removed from the books. When everybody can understand the law and not just the lawyers a.k.a. Senators, House of Representatives, Supreme Justices and all the other lawyers that are serving in political offices. It is called getting back to the basics. We all know what is right and what is wrong. There is no need to complicated past and present law. If a law is old and time has passed so that the law is no longer valid, then it needs to be removed from the books. Eventually you have laws that are current and up-to-date and in the process update the Constitution automatically.
Mr. Zakaria's point is well taken. The Constitution was the excellent, pragmatic product of a time whose historical conditions are not our own. While there may be enduring core principles that are worth preserving, there are also compromises that are simply no longer applicable, e.g. the 3/5ths compromise for the slave vote - yes, the Constitution has been changed - and omissions which no writer of that period could have foreseen.
I can think of two proposals to take into account modern developments, one my own and another recommended by a friend.
1. That Congress shall make no law which applies to its members but not to the citizens of the republic, for example, special health care or pensions funds. This seems entirely in the spirit of the original document.
2. A more concrete definition of the legal status and rights of the corporation. I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights equally applies to the individual as it does to the corporation, but this seems ridiculous to me. A corporation is not a person. I personally believe a corporation should not enjoy the same rights as the individual but should rather be bound to a more limited set of rights. Why not have a national debate about this?
Reforms here would have far reaching consequences and address some of the recent thorny issues regarding campaign finance, lobbying and other corporate political activities which currently, and erroneously, fall under the first amendment.
And could you imagine the conversation! If only we could keep it civil, what greater exercise in Democracy is there than an educated, respectful national dialogue on our founding principles and their ongoing relevancy in contemporary America.
Many of us feel that we no longer have government "of the people, by the people, for the people", but instead are governed by a plutocracy of wealthy interests. I believe that this situation is the result, in part, of institutional corruption in government–especially the Congress.
So I think the greatest weakness in our Constitution is the provision in Article I, Section 5, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." The result in Congress is a system of powerful committee memberships and chairmanships, seniority, secrecy and other perquisites that appears to violate Article I, Section 3 "each Senator shall have one Vote." I believe that the intent of this provision is to ensure an equal distribution of legislative power among Senators. [Curiously, there is no similar "each Representative shall have one Vote" in Section 2.] In the Senate today, there is certainly not an equal distribution of power among Senators. In fact the rules the Senate has established for its proceedings seem intended to guarantee that there will be no equal distribution of power among Senators.
Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to reform itself, unsurprisingly. I would favor an Amendment that abolishes the opaque and corrupt way Congress currently does business–by eliminating seniority, by appointing committee memberships and chairmanships either by lot or in rotation, and by abolishing secrecy in proceedings pertaining to domestic policy.
I would also favor an Amendment which establishes term limits for legislators, say 3 terms each for Representatives and Senators. I would also limit terms for members of the Supreme Court to, say, 20 years.
Lastly, I would favor an Amendment designed to reduce the influence of campaign contributors in two ways: 1) requiring complete transparency in reporting contributions, prohibiting corporate contributions, and 2) limiting the total amount of contributions per candidate per election. This latter should be possible were candidates to rely more on Internet campaigning rather than use of expensive traditional media.
At the moment I can't think of something but I think something needs to be updated too the 21st century thow. And we have many more people that have voices. We don't have a committy to over see these changes are correct and thought out. Also I think some should just be as it is and deal with it.
Given the comments on this thread the LAST thing we need is to re write the Constiution with "public input". The general American public is, and always has been, a generally ignorant bunch.
mostly why we drafted a document that can be understood by any idiot
New Immigration Amendment to the Constitution of the USA:
We are the Nation of Immigrants.
There for every person at least 18 years old, who wants to stay and work in USA is eligible to get a work permit for three years after passing a background check.
After three years he/she has to return to his/hers native country or can become eligible for a Green Card after fulfilling all of the following conditions:
- Pass the new background check
- Prove that he/she worked in USA at least two and half years
- Prove, that he/she paid taxes for all three years
- Pass TEOFL test
Amendment to the New Immigration Amendment to the Constitution of the USA:
People currently residing in USA out of status (illegally) has to immediately return to their native country or pay a $1,000.- fine and then they can take advantage of the New Immigration Amendment to the Constitution of the USA.
To avoid paying $1,000.- fine – new immigrant may show his/hers patriotisms by buying a house and help the USA with housing problem.
A "nation of immigrants" is not a nation, it's an open invitation to invasion, it's giving away your country to foreigners.
America is not a "nation of immigrants" we are a nation of CONQUERERS and BUILDERS.
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
a mechanism for amendment exists. Circumvent it at our own risk. Those who understand the risks and chose to continue seek only the demise of the Nation.
I actually like the ideas iceland has: Proper health care system. I've lived here 20 years became a citizen and thats the only thing that really needs changing right now. Nobody should go bankrupt because of insurance company /hospital/ Doctor /corporate greed . Most Americans are under the illusion that we have great health care. Not so- most of the industrialized worlds is much better. I know that because I lived there for thirty years.
Its a scam that needs sorting out. Otherwise we will all be sick and broke! Put that in the new constitution I say.
So... stay in Iceland. As for healthcare... get rid of HMOs which create this ungodly high medical cost average. Pay out of pocket for routine visits would cost $30 and health coverage is only used when needs for surgeries and emergency situation. Start healthcare saving accounts (HSA).... this is the only way we can make it work.
We need to rid this country of the unfair entitlement programs, get our a**es out of the 3 wars we are in, and consider redoing our fake currency, the almighty dollar. Inflation will soon be too crazy, our Fed Reserve is giving money to banks like it is crazy. This will eventually have a washdown effect to the REST of the population after the wealth benefit.
This economic downturn isn't even close to stopping. America has gone BEYOND the Constitution... and that is why we will be in the situation we will be in.
We should scrap the electoral college, make it illegal to tax wealthy states like those in New England for the sake of backward states like Alabama and Kentucky, allow states to easily secede from the Union, create an amendment that clearly establishes the separation of church and state and make it treason to challenge it, create real representation in the senate so tiny states couldn't hold the pursestrings of bigger states hostage, scrap the 2nd amendment which is irrelevant today and dangerous to boot, allow the people of Samoa, Puerto Rico, and our other territories to vote for independence, and finally to get rid of lobbying by special interest groups, private corporations and unions. We need to clearly define that corporations are not citizens, that they should not be allotted the same rights as citizens, and that they cannot interfere with government acting as environmental and safety watchdogs.
The US Constitution was by far the most advanced set of laws compiled in its day. But that was 1780, and now it's 2011. It's not holy writ, it's a document written by very intelligent people that had absolutely no way of foreseeing what the future would bring and how badly it would be misused. We need a Constitution that guarantees the well-being of the citizenry, first and foremost.
All of you bigots criticizing Fareed Zakaria have animal IQs and couldn't lick his shoes intellectually. Go read a book other then the 2 or 3 passages from the Bible and Mein Kampf that you feel justify your existence.
Uh people......... The Constitution has already by rewritten in the way it is openly interpreted into something totally different than what was originally envisioned. We would simply be updating it to nail down the issues that are swinging in the political wind. There is too much room for interpretation, and modern times have made many right completely obsolete.
If you keep the Constitution the way it is it will become completely useless to the people! It will surely continue to be a mess that serves the rich and powerful. Their lawyers will make sure of that! Every right you THINK YOU HAVE won't be worth the paper its written on!
Other than a couple of dick heads in the crowd, these comments are actually very insightful, thoughtful, and well written. A breath of fresh air from the typical partisan BS that presented here. Thank you all.
My Zakariah trust-o-meter just took a nose dive to some unfathomable negative number on the dark side of the black hole that is ANTI-AMERICAN.
H-E-L-L N-O. This has to be the absolute dumbest article I have ever read on CNN and that is really saying something. Don't worry, the nation will get a fresh start in January, 2013. It just won't happen to be the kind of fresh start the anti-American sociaist Democrats like the author of this article are hoping for.
Huh? I'm sorry Mr. political party thug but you may wish to enlighten us when either of the two parties have fixed anything?
When it God's name did the illustrious GOP help me out and change America for the best, and for all of us?
I don't see it, and frankly, I don't think many other people see it either. The yo-yo blame game is getting old. The "experts" have been in control and led us downhill.
Comparing Iceland's homogeneous and enlightened population of 300,000 with America's diverse and often reactive and backward population of 300 million is pretty naive. I would be comfortable living in Iceland without any constitution at all but I wouldn't step foot in America without the protection of its constitution. Many Americans are gun-totting religious nut jobs and at least the rule of law is on my side. Normal every day Americans need protection from fringe elements be it racists, skinheads, neo-Nazis, or mercenary corporations like Walmart. Of course the constitution could be immensely improved but I would rather keep it as is than let nut jobs tinker with it for their own off the wall agendas.
President Gore might've spared us a decade of wars + financial crises. We'll never know.
Its important to imagine that we could get a freer + more fair election process, incorruptible by politicians, republicans + their corporate masters, supreme court justices, et al. So, here's my top 3.
1) popular vote for all states + territories.
2) outlaw corporate personhood.
3) strengthen the separation of church + state, top to bottom, for the common good of all citizens inclusively + exclusively.
You're a idiot for writing this stupid carp and implying our constitution needs to be revised because some random country is doing so. Our constitution is. Timeless document. It does not need revised It IS OUR COUNTRY. And is to be protected from all enemies foreign and domestic. We can amend it as needed. You're a moron for writing this.
The Constitution has a way to be changed, it's called an amendment. You don't need to throw out what works, you need to have amendments to breath new life into it. The Constitution wasn't meant to be a static document, that's why the framers gave us the right to amend it.
To my humble opinion the weakness in the system of representation in the USA is, that a group/party representing 10% of all voters does not get a single Representative in the House. The group or party is unlikely to win a single district. Certainly, that is not proportional representation. Representation is done by voting district and resuts in one representative of each district. Yes, it is evenly distributed by area's.
A party/group of such size should have 10% of the seats in the House. It would make a totally different political system.
I usually like your reporting. Quite a lot as a matter of fact. But, in this instance not so much. I read none of the 1500 comments, but still feel compelled to argue a couple items. First, the Senate is a representation of the member States versus the House being more representative of the population. Most Americans do not want New York and California running things. I.e., It was done right the first time to balance population with a guaratee of some member autonomy. Second, the Constitution cleary spells out a government of 3 branches with checks and balances so your judiciary argument is far less than uncompelling when compared to Justive Marshall's decision in Marbury vs. Madison. Finally, the document you propose undoing has led this Country and frankly been the inspiration of the free world for numerous decades. You are trying to stand on the shoulders of giants, be careful you don't slip.
You can't get republicans and democrats to come to an agreement on how to cross the street properly and you think they can accomplish something like this? Dream on!
I like our Constitution just the way it is. If you don't, feel free to go somewhere where they have a "more modern" constitution.
By all means, go ahead and propose your changes. Good luck getting it approved and ratified. Most of us are happy the way it is.
kthxbai
I am not quite sure why anyone would pay any attention to what Zakaria writes, says or believes; especially in regards to our Constitution. A quarter of a century of living in this country hardly begins to legitimize his pipe dreams. His opinions on this country are about as salient and valid as the Pope's opinions on ahcieving the best orgasms. He is an unbelievable bag of chutzpah and hubris. I would love to buy him for what he's worth, and selll him for what he thinks he's worth. I suspect that when he gets through saving America, that he will be off peddling new clothes to emperors.
As tempting as this seems, we cannot simply throw away our Constitution.
While there would be benefits to doing so, such as revamping civil service reform and changing the dominion of the private and public sectors, there is one major issue.
That issue is the electoral college. Upon hearing those words, the 2000 general election pops into everyone's minds and
brings up the controversy etc.
But the electoral college, while being indirect, is not necessarily undemocratic. It actually promotes democracy because it balances out the popular vote; if only popular vote was
allowed and used, a highly unfair advantage would swing to voters of populous states, thereby leaving the Midwest, Rockies, and less populated states, notably more agricultural and less industrious, in the dust.
By doing away with the electoral college presidential candidates would only campaign in populous states, rendering the lesser populated states useless and unnecessary. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Furthermore, the Senate was designed to counterbalance the House of Representatives. For example, Texas has a far greater population than Rhode Island, thereby earning it a larger voice in the government. But imagine if the Senate was taken out of the new Constitution.
It would be detrimental to our government. States like Texas and California with huge populations would dominate the political landscape, again, rendering the lesser populated states powerless.
The Virginia and New Jersey Plans were iniciated by our Founding Fathers so that the smaller states would have a voice in the govetnment which was proportionate to population while also equal in representation respectively; the Virginia Plan became the House, the New Jersey Plan the Senate.
Without the Senate or the electoral college, less populous states would get the short end of the stick, and generally, that would also mean that one political party would dominate because Republicans dominate rural, agricultural areas, while Democrats dominate major urban areas, the areas that would have the most voting power.
So as far as I'm concerned, the Constitution may not be perfect, but it promotes equality, liberty, and democracy.
Our Founding Fathers have an ingenious mechanism built right in to our Constitution... It is called an Amendment. No need to start over. It keeps the founding principals secure while allowing modifications to be made that do not corrupt the main purpose.
Our Constitution does not leave a lot open to interpretation. It states exactly what is envisioned for this country. It is unfortunate, however, that it has evolved into something completely different. Those that believe it is open to interpretation, just cannot accept certain things and need to change it to fit their views. Much like it is done with the Bible.
If we followed the Constitution to the letter with a few changes amended properly, we would be in a much better place.
I say shame on America for having such conversation with someone who is not a native blood bought citizen. What America needs to do is to resolve back to the original Constitution and as close to its origination as possible, albeit except slavery. America needs to realize that people like Fareed Zakaria are the EXACT people that we should never converse with when it comes to our consitution. Peopel like him are opportunist and manipulators and only seek to serve that which will better serve him and his people from whatever country he is from. America better realize that foreigners are not here because they like us, but are here because we are ignorant enough to "like" them to the point of a cout! I do believe however that the HONEYMOON IS ENDING!
enough of obama
enough of obama trying to take over America, let the revolution begin, stand for freedom not obama, all those liberals who work against us shall fall to the side as We THe People TAKE BACK AMERICA from the blackie anti-christ who shall fall to the revolution of the people, Dont Touch Our Freedom or Ye shall Feel the Wrath of We The People. God Bless America not the blackie wannabe obama.
June 20, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Reply
>>>>>>>the use of the word blackie just negated your drivel....go back to junior high....
feel this, sissy- cracker
New Constitutional Amendment:
"Hey guys, remember when we said that the government was limited? Remember when we said that people and states had rights, just to reinforce the notion that there were certain things the federal government could not do? Remember when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments strongly implied that state governments should be trusted with unchecked power just as much as the federal government (i.e., not at all?)
"Well, we were pretty serious about all those things. Enough with the red ink and whiteout."
"P.S. Corporations are not people, governments have no business 'marrying' people to each other, and what the hell did we tell you about standing armies? We so totally told you. You never listen! Don't you point that gun at me! GO TO YOUR ROOM."
As distressing as it is that The (Five) People can edit, add to, or remove portions of the Constitution at will, it's even more terrifying to think of what The (Rest of the) People might do to it after being horrifically stunted by a relentless 200+ year campaign of distraction, stratification, and infantilization. Back in the late 1700's you had small-time farmers from Connecticut writing Anti-Federalist tracts and forcing the Federalists to begrudgingly support a Bill of Rights. That type of education and introspection simply isn't present anymore, and while the government certainly isn't to blame for every factor that produced the sorry state of affairs we have today, it sure as hell didn't have a strong motivation to slow the rate of decline. The People were always secretly meant to be "Sovereign but Silent," and that end has been achieved quite perfectly.
Still, it would be interesting to see how The People would react to the "real" language of the Constitution: as in, what happens on the ground floor due to all the SCOTUS and unreviewed federal appellate decisions that have massively changed it.
I agree wholeheartedly with a few previous commenters that there is an additional layer of laws – mostly relating to the Administrative "branch" of government, elections, and how Congress functions, but possibly also including a wide swath of the criminal law and intellectual property law – that have almost nothing to do with the Constitution but are still in dire need of transparent review and ratification/amendment/rejection by The People. Who'd have thought that a governing body given unchecked power to manage its own affairs would somehow find a way to do an end-run around the spirit of the Constitution at every turn? Truly shocking.
Yes, everything is broken or worse!
We should just eliminate the Senate.
The House should be 100 members elected for 3 terms maximum, half from cities and half from
groupings outside of cities with populations = Total / 100. Require elections to be by a majority of voters in each district and allow for multiple ranked choices.
Make the President and the Administration just that; administer the laws of the nation for 1 5 year term. Have the State governors pick one of their number as Vice President for a 5 year term; to automatically move to President after term is completed.
Create a New Executive Council composed of 9 members: The President, the leader of the House, 5 retiring House members, and the former President. This body will function as the executive authority of the nation for one 5 year term.
Very Important; Corporations are not people; and are absolutely forbidden to donate monies or provide any support of any kind to any politcal candiuate of ant type anywhere in the nation.
The income tax should abolished as well as the Payroll taxes.
The government needs to be run entirely by a VAT and fees for business services.
Government needs to have a balanced budget over a 5 year term; except in time of national mobilization for war or unemployment greater than 10%
All earnings from any source greater than 100 times the minimum wage will be confiscated entirely each year.
All wealth greater than 1 Million indexed to 2000 will beconfiscated at the death of citizen.
A Good Start!!
Oh yes, all courts need to be staffed by selection of Judges from a lower court and all judges need to retire at 65
Oh, you mean communism. GO BACK TO CUBA, COMRADE!!
while you go back to thumb up my ass-ville, cracker
1. Limit each bill introduced in Congress to 1 topic only. No unrelated amendments may be attached. Every idea has to stand or fall on its own merit. South Dakota has that in its constitution, and other states may as well. It works. Legislators don't have to vote for 100 porkbarrel amendments to get something they like.
2. Electoral college can go. National public vote – he/she who gets the most votes is the President.
3. Right of privacy. Put it in there.
Limit your dumb ideas!
This writer is completely misinformed.
The intent of senatorial representation is to ensure STATES have equal representation and the House of Representatives represents the population.
This is one of the reasons our system has endured is that the swings of popular will are muted by regional and state interests.
The electoral college also mutes the risk of populism avoiding tyranny by a majority.
Our system removes the risk of a wrong minded majority running amok.
It kept slavery alive, but allowed the union to endure. Its not perfect but it is better in many ways than other systems.
PURE democracy is a bad idea. A representative democracy is safer as it averages the results and passions of the nation.
GET RID OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE ARE YOU STUPID OR WHAT THAT WOULD DESTROY OUR NATION YOU MORON IT WOULD DISOLVE OVERNIGHT NO SMALL STATE WOULD STAY IN UNION
DID YOU FOLKS EVEN GO TO SCHOOL
its why they put it that way ONE STATE GETS TWO VOTES PERIOD IN SENATE AND IN CONGRESS ITS BASED ON POPULATION
it was only way to get small states to join if you go one person one vote only east and west coast would choose pres the union would dissolve NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
you need 2/3 of states to ratify AGAIN not GONNA HAPPEN
all the smaller staes would leave union OUTRIGHT
we are a republic FOR A REASON
Too many people are too eager to prove someone else wrong and flaunt what little knowledge they have.
Amen to that.
WOW, people like Fareed Zak are giving advise to change the constitution. Should we replace it with Hindu's constitution???
He is suggesting change because of what happened in Iceland, not advising it.
i cannot believe the complete Ignorance of people saying one person one vote what utter stupidity
Get rid of Zakaria. Someone should update the smile off his face. Limit Zakaria to two stupid comments a month.
while i knock that shit eating grin off of yours, sissy
Totally bad idea! Original works gives us a sense of identity and continuity and connection with the larger flow of history. Connection the founding principles is always a benefit. At least have an American make this silly suggestion, someone with deeper roots in America.
A new constitution we do not need. Improvements in the form of amendments are welcome when necessary. In fact, an amendment to protect unborn children may be our best bet to undo Roe vs. Wade. In much the same way that slavery is looked on as the horrible scourge it is, that we view the supporters of slavery as being uncivilized, brutal and violators of human rights, history will show that our society is also uncivilized, brutal beyond slavery and violators of the human rights of the weakest in our society until the day that we amend the Constitution to reaffirm that which was intended by its original authors. No, we do not need a new constitution. We need common sense and compassion laid down in the present document. Put another way, in the case of the U.S Constitution and the right to life, the problem is not an outdated law. The problem is a failure to adhere to it.
better than you
abort you
So move to Iceland or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Pakistan if you want to change constitutions.
as the only true (native) american, i say it is you who must leave infidel. The rest of his enemies are invited to live in hi house now
It would figure that someone named Zakaria - that isn't too middle eastern, is it? - would suggest that the U.S. needs a new Constitution. Why don't you go "home" Zakaria, and suggest it over there.
HURRAH! Larry (and all), that was and is exactly my first thought!
Further, if you have any religious notions included, or supporting, your premise, take those with you too, as it is expressly prohibited in our US Constitution (separation of church and state).
larry... that's not a native american name. get the hell off of my land or i will make you sorry. scalped
Its shocking how little this author actually understands the point behind why the constitution is the way it is. His complaints betray a total ignorance of the purpose of the document. I will attempt to address them point by point.
"The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent."
The electoral college exists to provide a standard 'weighting' of votes so no one populous state could overwhelm the concerns and interests of other states. By design it is possible to win the 'popular vote' and lose the election (the popular vote was never intended to be used for determining who won). He's probably aware of this, but is championing a leftist agenda popular in very populous states like California and New York but basically completely rejected in the rest of the country.
"The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote."
The Senate again has absolutely nothing to do with "one man, one vote". The senate exists to represent the interests of the states (as soverign powers in and of themselves, they have rights under the constitution). In fact, Senators are not even supposed to be elected by popular vote. Originially they were elected from state legistatures by state legistatures to represent the state legistlature in the federal gov't. Its also interesting to note that its because of the change making senators elected by popular vote, essentially robbing the states of representation in the gov't, that led to the federal gov't simply passing all kinds of fanciful laws and passing the costs on to the states in an unconstitutional fashion (no body tends to guarding the rights of states in our gov't, they were robbed of their repsentation).
There is a reason our constitution shouldn't be played with... it was darn near perfect to begin with and many of the changes are the SOURCE of our problems today. If you want to change it... change it back to what it was before idiots like this author got ahold of it. Congress, should have a rep for every 50,000 citizens and the senate should be elected by the state gov'ts to represent state gov'ts to prevent unfunded mandates and other unconstitutional encrouchments into states rights.
BTW, to clear up any confusion that may have been created by the uneducated author of this article... Our prevailing form of gov't in this country is not, never has been and never will be a "Democracy". We are a "Republic". And thats not simply wordplay, the two are very different. Perhaps CNN should buy the author a book so he can learn the difference.
your incorrect posture of arrogance does not make you correct. you are clearly unable to think and can only mimic the tired old lies of the criminals that founded this country
Care to recommend a book that succinctly distinguishes a democracy from a republic?
any sixth grade text, but it might be too much
Most ridiculous suggest I've ever heard. Shows no respect to the perfection on the Constitution. Then again, I do agree that we should return to the requirement that you must be a landowner in order to vote in any election.
So...he doesn't understand the concept of our bicameral government does he? Ya know, the whole great compromise and such. Nothing gets done unless both houses agree on it anyway. Abolishing the senate would essentially be abolishing small states.
I would like to see term limits for Congress; maximum of 12 years (6 terms) in the House, and maximum of 18 years (3 terms) in the Senate. Combined maximum of 18 years. Also, make the Presidency a single 7 year term. Limit Senate approval of members of the executive branch to only those directly reporting to the President (ie, Cabinet Secretaries and heads of independent agencies) and judges. Finally, set a retirement age for Supreme Court Judges at 75.
Electoral College not in the Constitution? Maybe not in those exact words, but check Article 2, Section 1.
Students in my undergraduate class often decide to tackle revising the U.S. Constitution, after reading other countries' constitutions. They learn that most other constitutions include the rights of women, language rights, food rights, housing rights, environmental rights, etc. etc. They also include civil and political rights. We discuss in class the obstacles to fully realizing these rights, but except for governance and civil and political rights, constitutional provisions express the aspirations of a people and are drivers for social change. They also express solidarity, and I would say that there is a solidarity-deficit in the U.S. Along these lines, we also discuss why the U.S. has not unconditionally ratified a single human rights treaty.
Our constituation gives the greatest gift... the Right to fail or succeed based on individual effort. What you refer to is really the state ensuring citizen success via the gov't treasury. Which is why none of those states are great, why they're all teetering on fiscal collapse too (including the US because we've been acting too much like europe the last few decades).
it's great when the tea-baggers can ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't like such as We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." What part of "promote the general welfare" don't the republicans understand??? In fact the Founding Fathers mentioned it twice in the Constitution. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
My idea for a revision comes after we've had a few budget crisis'. First: No amendment may be attached to a federal budget bill that is not related to expenditures. This prevents stuff like "removing the gray wolf from the ESA" from being added to the budget because it would never pass otherwise. The second idea is that should no new budget be passed in time, the old one is extended, but at a 10% decrease in ALL fields. This way, there's never a shutdown, but there's still incentive to pass different budgets.
As long as the law permits the legalized process of bribery known as "lobbying" - it won't make any difference how the number of reps is determined or what the term limits are. They will be bribed and do what their corporate overlords tell them to do, just as they do now.
As for rewriting the US Constitution, it already even provides for that: it's called Amendments, and there is no limit to them.
How do you improve on perfection? You tweak it over time as the real need arises. That's how brilliant and visionary our founding fathers were.
So, go back to camel jockey land, or propose it to a banana republic. I'm sure you'll find a more ameniable audience there.
WE THE PEOPLE: THE COURT OF LAST RESORT
Recommended 28th Amendment
Section 1
The right of the citizens of the United States to call for the removal from office of elected and or appointed officials of the federal government shall be herein guaranteed. Direct violation by any Federal official or officials of the provisions and limits of power as set forth in this Constitution shall constitute grounds for removal under this article.
Section 2
The procedure for the guarantee of this right shall exist in actions taken by the citizens through the legislatures and certain elected officials of the several states. The Federal government shall be barred from participation or influence in any way or manner in the execution of these actions but will be totally bound by law by the results thereof.
Section 3
In each individual state a call for impeachment of any federal official may be initiated by either of two distinct ways. The elected governor of each state will have the power to call for a vote of impeachment by the legislature of that state in order to initiate this procedure. The citizens of each state will also have the power through signed petition to require a vote of impeachment by the legislature of that state. The number of verified signatures on said petition must equal or exceed one fifth of the total number of votes cast in the most recent general election. When so ordered by the Governor or citizen petition the legislature of each state so ordered shall be required to convene if necessary and vote on such charges. A simple majority vote by each state's legislature shall stand as that state's authorization for charges to be brought against said official. Such authorization when confirmed by a simple majority of the several states shall require that charges be filed and the offending federal official be impeached.
Section 4
When impeachment is authorized in accordance with Section 3 of this article the elected governors of the several states shall be required to stand as jurors for such action. Conviction and removal from office of the federal official charged under this article shall require no less than a two thirds majority vote of the governors voting, excluding any and all abstentions.
Section 5
Conviction of any federal official under this article shall not extend further than the immediate removal from office of said official and lifetime disqualification to hold any office of the Federal Government. Such conviction and removal from office shall include immediate forfeiture of all claims to compensation of any kind whatsoever from the date of such conviction including all perquisites and pensions. Such conviction and removal from office shall not provide any immunity from indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to federal, state or local law for any crimes committed by said official while in office.
http://www.article-v-convention.com
How interesting the many responses we have pontificating on our beloved Constitution. The truth of the matter is our Constitution is a 'living document'. The founders never intended it to be a final solution for our country. Each generation is given the opportunity to place their stamp upon this document. The author accepts that the document has been amended 27 times already, so why start fresh. When a change has needed to be made it has been. I hardly think flushing toilets are a reason to scrap a form of government, but to each their own.
If the author of this article thinks he can find 39 men, or women now alive more capable than the original of creating a governing document I would like to see this list. In my mind any such search would have to start with our supreme court judges as foremost experts on governing documents as their primary job is the interpretation of the Constitution. As strong as this group is, none in my mind is ready to take the place of the slight of stature James Madison in our history books.
A most interesting discussion, yet I find little mention of our Founding Fathers envisioning public service to become a career, but that is what government has become, and quite profitably so. It stems from the ability to use our present forms of election mechanisms to propagate hierarchy within government to foster selfish career objectives instead of administering the best for America as a whole, fulfilling a finite term, and returning to citizenship as a productive member of common society. We could keep the Constitution pretty much as it is, but amend it to strictly limit any career ideas, offer benefits which are only in effect during terms of service, and then release those benefits, reduce the term of service to one term only, 2, 4, 6 years, stipulate a ten year period of non-political involvement after service, to include lobbying or consulting political activities, former elected officials receive the same benefits as any American after their term of service, and strictly limit the monies any candidate can acquire to become elected to any governmental position. In effect, take away the incentive to have a paid-for government body, and we will have returned American government back to American constituents, not conglomerate-like groups who have selfish agendas unrepresentative of America as a whole. Our Republic would thrive instead of being stifled, and power brokers would be deprived purchasing their plans or special interests. Our elected officials would not have time to construct life-long & powerful careers at the taxpayer's expense. I doubt it would ever happen, too much honesty & humility would be required, but I still believe it would work, and work extremely well for the benefit of all Americans.
What we need is for our politicians to actually read the constitution and then quit making laws that violate the same. If that is done there is no need to rewrite anything.
Very good, my point exactly, thanks!
110% agreed
Any books of the old or new testamant that you would also like to be faithfully followed >
i got a book of fairy tales that all of yo can follow, its right here. eat me
Any books of the old or new testament that you would also like to be faithfully followed >
If the Constitution were to be updated, it should acknowledge advances in technology which make certain aspects anachronistic, such as the Electoral College. There is no reason rooted in democracy why the US should maintain the Electoral College. Direct popular vote of the President is long overdue and should be enacted.
Additionally, the Constitution should severely limit the notion of corporate personhood to contracts and other similar business transactions. As we have seen, corporations wield undue influence in elections and through lobbying at the Federal and State levels. In the end corporations are nothing more than a collection of individuals who retain their First Amendment rights. Therefore, corporations also retain First Amendment rights through its membership.
Considering how our politicians grandstand to a growing field of morons who vote, rich special interests and businesses Id be DEATHLY afraid to see what a new constitution would look like.
totally agree. the same people who pushed the anti-american "patriot act" want to "update" it. chk out my post.
what is possibly the GREATEST EXPRESSION OF LIBERTY in human history needs to be removed for the one world government agenda pushers. to my HORROR... CNN's poll today asks if the US Constitution should be "updated".
ALL the problems of today have happened just because DC have not upheld the US constitution. specially WAR
(article 1 section 8)
only to get rid of you and your one government world, storm trooper
Not the wild west for sure, however my shotgun was very helpful when 3 guys broke in last month, the saw it and ran for the hills.
For the love of all that is holy will you retarded rednecks stop showing your ignorance by refraining from using racial slurs, and telling people to "go back to camel jockey land" ?
Instead of revising our constitution, how about we get back to actually abiding by it? Seems to me that The Corporation long ago took over the affairs of this country. Our Supreme Court recently ruled that the Corporation can now have the same rights as individual citizens. WTF! over?
The only candidate out there that is actually a constitutionalist is Ron Paul. Neither the "Republicorps" or the "Democorps" want any attention paid to him.
Sad.....
But we will have our constitutional government again one day- after the current paradigm collapses. When we will finally get back to basics and what is really important for the future of Humanity.
Peace~
Ron Paul = big business/corps standing on the backs of the working men = slavery, not freedom
no matter how much lies (knowingly or not) you say, the TRUTH will prevail in the end. get a spine or learn about the issues from dr. paul and not the dirty sleazy propaganda against him.
Constitutional Change:
The US Constitution is not an exceptional document. It was a compromise and out of date within 25 years. All constitutions must evolve, but the declared purpose of the mechanism of ours is to thwart change. ‘Original intent’ has no basis in logic. Most improvements already exist in leading, more mature, industrialized nations and we should simply copy them.
Three much needed changes are:
1. Switch to a parliamentary system in which the President or PM and is chosen on the basis of ability and experience by colleagues in the elected majority party. For Obama to spend $1 billion on reelection is obscene, and to begin campaigning 2 years in advance rather than running the country is ludicrous. Fifty-one percent of Senate members should be appointed based on their business, academic, or social support knowledge.
2. Severely restrict federalism. Move to national standards and laws and avoid being the dis-United States of America. Merge states into administrative 6-7 regions.
3. Improve individual human rights. Ensure that the ancient concept of autonomy and freedom of individual choice are central to our federal laws. Adopt regulations already adopted in the 20th century in OECD nations for 21st century America:
a. Universal health care
b. Allow abortion funding (gestational age 16-20 weeks)
c. Discontinue the death penalty
d. Allow same sex marriage
e. Enforce strict gun control
Ivan Hild
i would kill to stop something like that and im not kidding i am against EVRYTHING YOU SAID
as soldiers we too kan oath to uphold and protect the constitution your outright contempt for our beloved constitution is made manifest in your words AND WE DONT WANT OR NEED THE OECD EVER
spoc, kill kirk and put ivan in charge
NO BETTERTHANJOSH BUT I DID SWEAR THIS WHEN I WAS 17 AND IT WILL HOLD UNTILL I DIE UNDERSTAND THAT
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
bring it josh you threatening me punk?? all i said i would kill to defend constitution you said kill me would you like to meet and discuss this im game
you are the only one seriously talking of killing and you know that.
as for the spoc thing, just a goof on your name to poke more fun at you.
looks like your intent to instill fear in others is because of the fear in you
Never, a$$ wipe!
MR. Hild, let me make sure I understand some of your key points:
You would advocate abolishing our present form of democracy in favor of a parliamentary system, wherein the leader (Prime Minister) would be elected by popular vote of the legislative bodies, sort of like the popularity contests we all had in high school.
One of the legislative bodies (Senate) would be a majority of appointed representatives based upon their perceived knowledge of public causes and their notoriety among their would be colleagues (senators). Sure as hell sounds like the "good ole buddy network" at work to me. In essence a majority of the Senate would be appointed by other senators and House members based primarily on their popularity. This sounds almost identical to the process of picking a prom queen in high school. Were you a prom queen by chance?
Next we move on to "entitlements" you advocate.
Universal health care for all. Noble cause. So the foundation of the "Land of the Free" would change to enslave everyone for life to pay for everyone to be taken care of from "womb to tomb". Is that what you're saying? Explain to a child, your child, that you have to take away, or not provide, some things to the child because the funds and resources that the parents worked hard for to be able to provide for the child, have been allocated to someone else's child that is not as healthy as your child. I hope you're the one that explains that to the deprived child. That's what I call the "insurance" mentality. In my opinion ALL forms of "insurance" should be outlawed. People are too damn dumb to understand those multi-billion dollar skyscrapers owned by the insurance companies came out of their pocket! But that's another issue.
Others describe that mentality as "communism", or a form of "socialism".
Next, I think we had government funded abortions. Some would call that "murder". Doesn't that conflict with your nect advocated point – abolish the death penalty? In case nobody ever told you, in lie, you can't have it (whatever "it" may be) both ways. Now on top o that, you advocate that somebody else pays for a medical procedure arising from some female getting banged that either doesn't want to have a child, or couldn't take care of a child if she did. Oh, but given that everyone would be taken care of from "womb to tomb" in your "utopia", wouldn't that make any abortion unnecessary? So long as someone else is payin the tab.
Last, I think we had your premise of equality for gays. Singling out one group over another defeats the very purpose of "equality" and constitutes an oxymoron.
But, what else would I expect to come from a moron....?
It is a clear and undeniable fact that for the past 4 years forces outside of the U.S. and internally have been trying to convert the American REPUBLIC into a socialist state. IF the American people were so naive as to even contemplate the idea of a complete constitutional rewrite they would be opening up our country to the ever increasing lunacy of Socialism. The Founding Fathers created the Constitution as a living document that was designed to change as the country grew and evolved. Hence that is why there are amendments to the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers patterned America and the Constitution after the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was able to bend and flex and adapt to the needs of its people as does America today. The Roman Empire lasted 1000 years because it was like America, For the People by the People. A complete constitutional rewrite would allow vitriolic influences to hijack the Constitution and make it For the Government On the Backs of the People. As a born and raised American I take a stark 180º position to allowing Socialist and Communist to rule America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. We must be vigilant Watchmen of our Constitution and never allow this document to be destroyed or our country to be overtaken by oppressive forces.
the roman empire died a long and horrible death Jon. you and your empire are dying too, horrible huh?
I know you said three, but....
1) Campaign Finance: no corporate or private organization or group to be allowed to donate to federal candidates or to their support; regulate amount of personal funds a candidate or their family may expend toward and contribute to political campaign or toward public office.
2) Federal Bench: federal judges serve maximum of 12 years and chosen on the basis of their moderate views across the substantive and or often debated topics of the day, not leanings.
3) Citizenship: to limit U.S. citizenship to children born of parents who are citizens at the time of birth or to those who are naturalized through an established and uniform congressional process.
4) Federal Budget: federal budget to be balanced; specific monetary ramifications to all members of congress & u.s. president/vp if it's not.
My two suggested amendments: campaign finance reforms providing for public financing, bans on corporate contributions and a declaration that money does not equal speech.
Flexible wages for Federal employees–that wages can be adjusted depending on the economy and tax recpt's
I think it would be great if we followed Iceland's method of development and review. However, we all know that the result would be very bad. Due to the level of corruption in corporations, lobbying, prejudice, and misleading or false journalism thanks to no truth in broadcasting law in this country, we could never expect anything better than what we already have.
I don't feel the constitution should be rewritten as the general foundation of the docuement is still sound. As pointed out it is a document of structure and basic rights. I do disagree with the elimination or changing the Senate to a proportional body.
My thoughts for change
1 – Term limits, Congress needs to have limits to minimize the impacts of lobbies. We have too many "elder statesmen" that have done nothing but work the system in Congress.
2 – Electoral Reform, either apportioned by district won or by percentage of votes. Closer representation to the popular vote but not a one to one as this does favor large states too much. Swing districts are better than swing states and would get our candidates to visit more areas of the country.
3 – Elimination of "advise and consent" of executive appointees except for SCOTUS. Possible qualifications for Judicial appointees enumerated.
You have to wonder how much of the time would be caught up in frivolous debate over abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.
Ivan Hild
i would kill to stop something like that and im not kidding i am against EVRYTHING YOU SAID
as soldiers we too kan oath to uphold and protect the constitution your outright contempt for our beloved constitution is made manifest in your words AND WE DONT WANT OR NEED THE OECD EVER
start by killing yourself and your family if you must kill, boy with a mental illness
NO BETTERTHANJOSH BUT I DID SWEAR THIS WHEN I WAS 17 AND IT WILL HOLD UNTILL I DIE UNDERSTAND THAT
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
I'd offer a few ideas:
1) The Senate was intended to represent the States, while the House was intended to represent the people. Direct election of Senators has led to all sorts of contradictions. So, suggestion 1 is that we go back to a system where Senators are elected by the States.
2) Term limits. This applies especially to House members. 10 years (5 terms) is quite enough, thank you. (I am assuming fractious Legislatures will create term limits on Senators.)
3) Redistricting must be reformed. The Constitution was written before there were strong parties that maintain their power by districting to continue to get re-elected.
4) A Federal Judiciary appointment system that works like NJ: you are appointed for 5 years (longer than the term of the sitting Governor/President) on the first go. At the end of 5 years, you may be re-appointed for life or replaced. This has ensured a strong, stable judiciary in NJ.
4a) Senatorial privilege, that allows a single Senator to block a judicial appointment, must be eliminated. It's not clear if this needs to be in the Constitution, but the practice is reprehensible.
5) This one is a problem for which I don't have a suggested answer: modern warfare requires a much more modern understanding of how/when the President can use force. The old "launch on warning" of the M.A.D. Cold War days is just one example; the current debate about the legality of the Libya intervention is another. The Constitution should really be revised to create a stronger legal platform here.
6) Per-State proportional Electoral College, as "AJ" discusses above. States still get as many Electoral votes, but the winner-take-all laws at the State level are over-ridden by a Constitutional mandate.
Finally) The idea that individual liberty comes with individual responsibility. I'm looking at all the liability lawyers out there who have made injury suits into a kind of lottery ticket. Sometimes, people, it is *your* fault, not some deeper pocket.
OK - and we also need to establish the proper legal framework for zombie apocalypse.
Our Constitution isfully open to amendment and as such does not need to be rewritten. While it is nice and pretty to revise our Constitution to eliminate those things about which we wish to forget, that will also allow us to deny those things which we never wish to see again. Insightfully, Mr. Fareed understands that full reconstruction is not needed. Our original governing document, the Articles of Confederation, were created by people fresh from battle against a corrupt and self-serving bureaucratic Parliament, and as such was so weak it could not provide any of the security needed for defense or trade. From extremely well educated and practical men with a pragmatic life experience came a document flowing with understanding of human limitiations, political limitations, and economic limitations. Read, and re-read until you understand it, Federalist Paper Number 10 and you will see what I mean. However, I would not trust our general citizens today to attempt so lofty a document, and for these reasons: Today's people are so inundated with the teachings of Ayn Rand and other atheists, that they are not capable of comprehending the reality of Social Contracts true meaning; Our Founding Fathers understood what was ethical in a superior way to the majority of people both then and now. (Which is not to say they always behaved in a morally superior manner – they were afterall able to make mistakes, but that they were better learned in the nature and philosophy of what is ethical and included that in the creation of the Constitution.) Further, in my experience not only are the vast majority of people not ethically capable of reaching the same level as our Constitution, but the vast majority of those with whom I have met – across 49 states – are ill equipped with a sufficient amount of historical, legal, economic, and ecosystemic knowledge to make informed decisions. I have even been told that beef comes from beef manufacturing centers, not cows. In a society where facts are irrelevant, personal pleasure justified on no more than the whim of the moment, narcotics a rampant disease destroying families and nation equally, scores of sexually transmitted diseases rampant and many at epidemic proportions, deficit spending that is beyond unsustainable, and an urban centered population completely depending on mass produced goods, services, and basic food with no capacity for self-sufficiency – we do not have a population pragmatic enough, practical enough, disciplined enough, educated enough, nor in fact tolerant enough of race, world view (cultural, philosophical, and religious), sexual distinctiveness, gender, or social status to even begin to attempt such a grand document. Too many who lead us, both in the public and private sector, have repeatedly shown a marked lack of awareness of the fortunes of those whom they lead. Those who are now led have achieved a well earned bitterness against those who profess to act in their interests, or in the private sector (and thanks to Objectivism) simply openly declare a lack of concern with what happens to those whose lives they would Enron.
If I had a choice as to what to amend for the good of our society, I would create the following:
1) Mandatory public service in a uniformed services for four years by all functionally capable citizens and residents; said services to include but not be limited to: the Civilian Conservation Corps (under the Dept. of the Interior), Public Health Service Commisioned Corps, Department of Defense, and National Guard.
2) Recognition of all ecosystemic and economic interactions as those of special entities who have necessary conditions of special dependence such that it is a public and state responsibility to protect their interest, and for whom both public and governmental entities may act on the behalf of as custodial stewards.
3) To clearly define separation of Church and State as the lack of authority by any government, or person representing such authority, through support, coercion, intimidation, or other action or inaction to impose any system of creeds or specific world view about the nature, perception, definition, and observance of existence or lack thereof upon any person or group of persons.
It's said that the founding fathers didn't want a strictly representative government. Perhaps the had a crystal ball and knew California was coming.
I think adding/revising our constitution would be a great idea but I think we need to decide what to add. I would love to dismantle the electoral college. I think we do need more specific laws about election disputes. I think the senate was made that way because the house of representatives represents each states population and the senate represents equality with each state, so that is necessary and I would not touch it. I think we should require congress and all congress members be required to contribute and take part in social security and their salary should average to about the average US citizens salary. Every US citizen should get 100% healthcare and a better path to legal immigration be created.
How did you get your job? Your lack of knowledge re: American history and politics is unbelievable.
I've read quite a few of the responses and this is absolutely why I love our country. Only in America do we all share a strong enough sense of personal security that we can sound off in a national dialogue regarding issues that we deem critical to our nation's future well being. What document guarantees such security? The U.S. Constitution! As such, why would we want to throw it away and start over? The Constitution is a living document, intended to limit the powers of the government on behalf of the people. Our founders recognized that unforeseen issues would arise and require a change. They therefore created a process in which to amend the Constitution. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. However, I challenge anybody to find a document anywhere that better protects its citizens FROM the government.
What truly scares me is the lack of education of our government system. Ask the average person how big the Constitution is and they'll likely tell you its hundreds of pages long. The look of disbelief on their face when they see its actually the size of a pamphlet is priceless! By the way, this is not a generational issue. Old and young alike are guilty of their "ignorance." What would be truly interesting is instituting a voter education requirement. I'm talking about a simple test that evaluates the voter's comprehension of our form of government, not necessarily the issues at hand. Why not? In every other facet of our country a license is required when an activity is so dangerous it could cause harm to others (i.e. driving, medical doctors, engineers, electricians, etc.) Couldn't allowing an uninformed voter create harm to others by them not understanding the purpose of the Senate or the House, for example? I think so.
Bottom line, Mr. Zakaria, we don't need to throw the constitution out and start over. Instead, we need our government to return to the powers outlined within it. If a new governmental issue arises, then lets propose an amendment and get it ratified. Until then, let's the leave the document alone that provides all of the ability to speak freely about dismantling our form of government.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of $h(t? The bucket.
All joking aside, it seems pretty obvious to me that it takes some crackin good lawyers to write up a decent constitution. Forget about this fantasy of millions of on-line dysfunctional internet addicts tweeting up a new foundation. Ever wonder why post-grads don't reference wikipedia? Sheeesh.
I always assumed it was because Wikipedia isn't on the required reading list, and professors, publishers and editors don't get any money out of it. Seriously, the average correction time for a bad post on Wikipedia is 15 minutes. It's general knowledge, and as far as encyclopedias go it's not bad. You don't cite Wikipedia for the same reason you don't cite any other encyclopedias; the point of citation is to prove that someone else agrees with you on a complex point, not to establish general knowledge.
For that matter, the more complex the issue, the more people disagree on it, as any post-grad knows. Go ahead and try to find ten books on the same subject written by Ph.Ds that agree on all points. Personally, I think crowd-sourcing is a great idea. They can throw out the crazy ideas and keep the ones that a lot of people agree on. That way, at least they know that their constitution is the will of the people, not the will of the few elites who are supposed to be writing it.
Leave the document alone. Any changes made in the way we do things would be to get back to what the constitution really says and quit ignoring it.
We will change our Constitution over my and millions of other Patriotic Americans dead bodies. The muslim CNN host and White House insider Fareed Zakaria, his muslim buddy Barack Obama, and all the socialists/communists in this country had better leave our sacred documents alone. I can't wait until the election of 2012 when we take down these liberal/socialist degenerate subversives.
The "sacred document" has been amended 27 times. It was meant to move with the times and incorporate improvements as future generations developed the more perfect union. One could make the argument that amendments are part of the point and purpose of the Constitution. By "Patriotic Americans" I can only assume you mean fellow ignorant racists. Also, the Cold War is over.
Sorry all... I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but it's for a good cause.
just remeber, it was you who asked for it to be over your dead body.. someone will be glad to grant that request for you i'm sure
Do I have to tell everyone?
It is Arab not Arabic(Arabic is a language).
People should not be racist either.
This is not a bad idea, but maybe we shouldn't change the whole constitution.
Overall, I think this could make a better America.
I would agree that it's worth thinking about. Many things in the Constitution and the Amendments are based on an outdated world with poor communication and no army. The federal system in which states have much of the power is one example (with poor communication, local authority is more important). The government could be much more efficient if the largest programs are run centrally without being filtered in so many ways by the states. The electoral college goes along with this. The Second Amendment is another example of part of the Constitution that is no longer needed, organized militias no longer being necessary for the security of our state. And that's not to mention the regulation of slavery.
That being said, the Constitution is amazingly adaptable, and I think it's a safer, better idea for people to simply get behind a few new amendments if we really need them. One quelling the power of the judiciary and another explicitly denying the President authority to use the military in police actions overseas without Congressional approval spring instantly to mind.
But to the author, I say, the Senate is not undemocratic. It is precisely the compromise that is needed: the House gives populous states more representation, and the Senate ensures that no states get left behind or overruled by the majority. It has to be that way or there would be a tyranny by the most populous states.
3 changes that should be made to the constitution:
1. Balanced budget required under all circumstances.
2. All corporate and union contributions to political campaigns prohibited.
3. Equal rights amendment.
My three consitutional amendments are
All elected officials have one six year term then can't run again for six years.
This takes the corruption motives out, lowers the cost to run and allows the best and brightest a reasonable contribution to offer.
The next two amendments would then quickly be written by a wonderful team of women and men motivated to write the laws that they will soon have to live under as private citizens.
This country is still THE UNITED STATES then the different approach in the representatives/senators election process makes sense. The presidential election is outdated instead. The electoral college has to be eliminated and replaced with a french style two turns process. If no candidate gets 50% +1 of valid votes, the two more voted candidates go to a face to face second run. This process will also free the system from the traditional democrat/republican slavery allowing moderate candidates to run too. Additionally private contributions to any level of election has to be banned only pubblic financing has to be allowed. Both politics and the country will benefit from a more transparent process.
Personally, I think a federal system of ballot measures similar to how elections are done on a state level would be nice. For example, the House and Senate seem pretty reluctant to enact term limits for Congress. Who could blame them? Would you vote yourself out of the best paying job you've ever had? No, of course you wouldn't. But in order to keep America moving forward I believe we need fresh ideas and actions, not the same old crap from the same old over paid politicians. So a group of people goes out and gets X number of signatures to get something put on the federal ballot, and people vote on it. If it fails, they have the option to try again on another election. But if it passes, Congress has to live with what we voted in, not the other way around. How many laws have we had rammed down our throats that we did not want? Such as the Electoral College perhaps? I think that concept has long since out-lived it's intended purpose, and I know I am not alone. So put it on a federal ballot and lets vote it out, and then vote on a better plan of some kind. Then we might actually have what we were promised all those years ago. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The founding fathers would be horrified that some people today regard them as demi-gods whose words can't be altered. Their system of government didn't float down from Mount Olympus – it was hammered out through argument, compromise, and good old trial and error. They of all people would want us to keep working toward that more perfect union.
Possibly "toward a more perfect union", but that does not include trashing the original founders plans, and trotting America off toward the oppression and pseudo-slavery that people like Fareed suggest.
Fareed – for someone with your credentials, your article is so simple minded that I can only imagine your intent was to stir the pot. The "democrats" are still pissed about being out-frauded and the "republicans" are still sensitive about the scathing, personal, and mindless attacks. Well done chap – you are nearing 2000 posts.
Democrats being "out-frauded"?
Are you saying Wiener's wiener is a fake?
Wow! No wonder his wife is pissed!
Fareed,
I generally think the document created by the founders and altered over time by the amendment process is pretty good, not perfect, but good. I in no way think it is the supreme, infallible, never to be changed, governing document that many in this country hold it out to be. The founders knew at the time of writing they didn’t create the perfect document, quite honestly they knew they failed to deal with slavery issue. The original document didn’t include the Bill of Rights and as I understand was only added to obtain state support for ratification. They created the best document possible at the time.
The most significant issues that need to be dealt with is not with the original document or the amendments, but with the interpretations that the Supreme Court have taken which have degraded our democracy and created a electoral system where wealth and money has more power and influence than intended. The amendments I would propose are to create a democracy in our electoral system, but not a pure democracy for the republican adherents.
Amendments:
1. Amendment defining that citizens or people are only living human beings and does not include organizations created by government authority (i.e. corporations).
2. Amendment limiting campaign finance participation (contributions) to the citizens of the electoral district or state in question.
3. Amendment requiring that all Congressional district boundaries be established by non-partisan commission of the related state.
I want to add a comment on campaign financing. Many people support public financing of elections evenly distributed to the candidates, however, I’m not a support of this idea. I do have an alternative idea that is similar, but eliminates the equal distribution of funds. I believe the ability of a candidate to raise financing should have an impact on the campaign, given that contributions are only by citizens of the related district/state and are limited in general to prohibit the influence of the wealthy beyond their equal rights as a citizen.
My idea is to allow an income tax credit up to the limit for all citizens make to political campaigns. The credit effectively makes it equal to the idea of using tax revenue to pay for campaigns, but at the same time allows for differences due to the ability of the candidates to appeal to the citizens of that district.
Mr. Zakaria, thank you for your timely and relevant insight. The US constitution is very close to being a political anachronism in today's world, especially the Electoral College, an institution invented for the express purpose of keeping a check on the power of the people to elect their own leader. As one of the other commentators noted, this system was put in place in an era before modern communications, and this played a part in its implementation, but it was also put in place as a sop to slavery in the south and as a method of balancing the voting powers of large states with smaller states. Curiously, the latter function has been completely negated in modern times; the largest states have the most electors, and so they matter the most regardless. Indeed, in the modern world the electoral college serves no purpose other than to focus potential presidents' attention on a bare handful of states during each electoral cycle. Furthermore, at several points in American history the electoral college has served to actively defy the will of the people by awarding the presidency to men who actually lost the popular vote. In short, the Electoral College has been long since divested of any useful function, and now serves only to prevent fairer methods of election. It is unfortunate that so many of my fellow Americans suffer the usual knee-jerk reaction anytime anyone proposes a change to the Constitution, even one so arguably beneficial to the common good as removing the Electoral College.
Here are two suggestions, both intended to improve our democratic structure:
1) To help ensure a level playing field regarding the public's access to political candidates' competing views, amend the Ist Amendment. After the words, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," add the words, "except to foster electoral impartiality."
2) To stimulate Congressional decision-making that strikes a better balance between the country's long-term and short-term interests, a) limit the tenure of U.S. Senators and Representatives to a total of 12 years in Congress (whether serving in one house or both); and b) extend the terms of Representatives from 2 years to 4 years.
"I'm just suggesting we talk about a few revisions."
Then those few revisions should be discussed and proposed as amendments to the Constitution, there is a process for that.
There is NO reason to open a Constitutional Convention to propose a "few revisions". At a Con-Con, unfortunately everything and anything could be brought up for consideration.
I say NO to your Con-Con request. If you wish to proposed a few revisions, stay within the Amendment Process as it exists. If the proposals are worthy of amendment, they should have no difficulty passing, yes?
Keep your filthy mits off OUR Constitution slum dog, tell your followers and thiefbama to get a job instead of stealing from productive Americans
eat me rich sissy boy
Does CNN need Fareed Zakira?
the answer is; we don't need you Jack
It's funny how every time the T.E.A. Party Patriots or others on the right sound a warning about people like this, the left immediately plays the race/LGBT/Class Warfare etc... card, then, when they actually pull the mask off for a brief moment, or they overreach with cronyism, corruption, and government powers and spending, you mesmerized fools turn around and blame the right again.
Do you people on the left have the attention span of a gnat, or the intellect of one, or both???
.
wow, senile puppet, get your mommy to type this for you, you sound like her. try thinking before typing
Still unable to put a rational sentence together?
Well, there is always "copy/paste" made especially for people like you.
Must be nice to be a democrat, and be able to do away with all of that "thinking" stuff.
.
just didn't want to waste too many words on a fool like you, and i know your definition orf thinking = lying
sorry little puppet that you are
just didn't want to waste too many words on a fool like you, and i know your definition of thinking = lying
sorry little puppet that you are
The electoral college is "un-democratic" because we are not a democracy. Democracy is mentioned no where in the constitution, and is the stepping stone to socialism. The United States is a Republic. Instead of changing the constitution maybe CNN should hire a reporter tyhat has studied it.
lame, we'll just have to use you as a stepping stone to socialism
Is that you, Obama?
.
no control freak, its your mama
If the US was a democracy, you and the other 51% of your kind could vote me as your stepping stone. Unfortunately for you, we aren't a democracy. ow head on back to Huffington, and daydream about what a great utopia it would be if we could just tweak the constitution in your favor.
don't need a constitution and don't you vote. the democratic party is way too conservative, they are just nice republicans.
So calling me a democrat and liberal doesn't even come close, ceertainly not able to offend me.
I don't need to do a thing, you and your kind are digging your own graves, i just sit back and laugh as i wait.
The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten, just certain elements need to be overhauled. The 14th amendment needs to be rewritten to remove its application to illegal immigrants, several other provisions need to be fixed to remove the loopholes that minorities exploit, etc.
the only immigration issue that needs to be dealt with is the one that allows you to be here instead of the native americans. you've been scalped
Thanks again Josh for being the poster boy for the democrat party.
Next time try to throw in a little more hatred and spittle and we will give you a shiny toy.
I hope you are proud of the failed president and the division he and people like you have brought on this country.
.
too bad if laughing at the absurdity of you has hurt your little feelings.
as for being a democrat, that is just way too conservative for me, they're just nice republicans.
you are your own undoing and division, i need do nothing but sit back and watch you fall
Easy:
1. A balanced budget amendment that can be overridden with a declaration of war from Congress or a two-thirds majority in Congress.
2. An amendment that allows a two-thirds majority of the state legislatures to veto any act from Congress within one year of its passage,
3. Change the Electoral College distribution to 1 EV for every congressional district the candidate wins, with the majority winner receiving the state's two senate EVs. This allows for more democracy while still allowing agricultural states to maintain influence it deserves.
111 indictment and counting – no self professed British Subject can be President of the United States. No worries there is no shortage of rope -
betterthanjosh
just threatened me becausei said id kill to protect our constitution
as a soldier i swore and oath to do just that what a looney tune
Thank you for your service, Kirk.
This nation is the greatest on earth because people like you uphold and protect the basic rights and values of our fellow man.
Pay no attention to lemmings like 'josh. He has not been schooled properly.
.
Fareed has once again proven that it doesn't take a knowledge of history to write propaganda.
We already have a way to update our constitution, called the Amendment. And it is hard to pass them for a reason.
1. Fed. govt. has no authority to regulate commerce in or between the states. All authority rests with the states.
2. Repeal the 16th amendment. No income taxes.
3. The executive branch cannot create regulatory agencies. All regulations must be passed by Congress just like any law.
Kind of looks as though this guy should be relocated. Not sure where, just out of the 50 states.
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
It's clear that Fareed does not understand American governance. I think that a naturalized citizen should know better. The remote has always been wise enough to pass his program rather quickly because it's now apparent that the remote has more sense than he does.
You, sir, are a moron.
The USA Constitution has held this country together since 1789 and has literally saved the world several times over.
So let's change it?
Thank you.
HEAR HEAR LANKY
(1) Amendment that all people residing on US land are guaranteed the right to healthcare
(2) Amendment to publicize all higher education institutions, thus every person have the opportunity to attend a college or university that fits him or her best based on intellect, rather than financial means.
(3) Amendment that allows only constituents be allowed to decide if their representative should or should not resign.
Nice Utopian shopping list. How about the "right" to take half of the neighbors loot at gunpoint? Wouldn't that be simpler?
How about a constitutional amendment which would entail combining democracy and demarchy? One half of the House and Senate would be elected per existing procedures, and half would be appointed (for single terms) by random drawings from state specific pools of citizen volunteers.
A Self-Professed British Subject Posing Illegally as President of The United States and they think there isn't enough rope to hang them all. . .
Funny, their leader never had any hope of winning the battle, it was never an option being the lesser power and all, his only hope was to see how many dupes he could hoodwink over to his side. . . There are more then a few dim bulbs inside the beltway – wow, sucks to be them real soon!
I believe that we desperately need to update our ancient and dangerously ambiguous constitution.
Amendments I would like to see:
1. That the American government get out of the marriage business.
Let 'marriage' be between whoever your church wants it to be, and it would only be recognized by your church
and let every American citizen (regardless of sexual orientation) be able to be joined together in LAW by a civil union. Civil unions would be recognized at the federal level with all the tax and law benefits equivalent to what 'marriage' currently is. In my opinion, everybody wins. Religious people can still have their 'marriage' and whatever they want it to mean, but if you want a union between two people to be recognized by the government, it would have to be a civil union, gay or straight.
2. That a separation of church and state be put into law.
December 25th could still be a national winter holiday, but Christmas technically would not be. 'In god we trust' would not be our national motto, on our money, or in any pledge.
3. And all colleges of higher education be public and regulated just like the rest of the free public education system.
I'm also for COMPLETE separation of church and state. So I can establish my own church and opt out of all federal & state laws, taxes and regulations. Libs always seem to want the separation to be one sided though.
Mr. Zakaria,
Feel free to move to Iceland and help them write the Progressive Constitution you obviously dream of. Include rights for every form of perversion you want and be sure to give extra rights to people who hate democracy. Just leave my constitution alone!
To change the US Constitution would unilaterally change mine and millions of other veterans oaths to defend it to the death. Including those who gave all for an absolute you would make fluid. Not going to happen, trust me here. oathkeepers.org
It is a federal constitution that respects the rights and interests of the individual states. It is not meant to be anything else. We do not need to change the basics.
My suggestions for tweaks (ie, amendments) include:
1. Outlawing gerrymandering
2. Making congress subject to the same laws as the rest of us (eg, insider trading and sexual harassment)
3. Term limits for congress
4. Provide a more precise definition of "interstate commerce".
How about an amendment to ban Indian A-holes from moving to our country and trying to undermine it?
How about not giving the Communists a say in what our consitution should say? Fareed Zakaria is a communist and a friend of Barak Obama's. Google him and you will see his true agenda – and it's not American success, that's for sure.
"American democracy is a system designed by a genius for effective use by stupid people."
Chinese Lieutenant General Yazhou Liu
sums it up nicely I think!
I find Fareed's complaint about the 2000 election to be highly ironic. in a very close election, the Electoral College system limited the area of contention to one state – Florida. That year many states used punch card voting systems, all of which had the same irregularities as Florida's, but the winner-take-all model meant those irregularities had no relevance. Imagine the horror of a nationwide recount.
In addressing Fareed's larger point, it's clear that he is voicing discomfort over the disconnection dating from 1937 between the constitutional text and the de facto constitutional arrangements fashioned by the Supreme Court. Although we may represent a minority, many of us vastly prefer the actual text as it is.
With the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
Now one vote can determine the plurality of the vote in each state, and up to 55 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Under National Popular Vote, votes are equal in all states, and counted among the total pool of 130 million votes in the country.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
Someone should remind Mr. Zakaria that we are a republic not a democracy. Democracies have always failed as they are based completely on what they majority rules, which always turns into mob rule. The founders understood this well and set up the government we have in order to avoid one group being singled out by another. While it may seem throughout our history that it still happens to an extent, eventually the remedies in our laws will come through via the legislative process.
In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
I at one time respected Fareed for a left leaning thinker even though I didn't agree with 1/2 of what he said.
You lack credibility to speak on this topic given your misleading history lesson on representation and praise of centralized power. The constitution framed a representative republic, not a democracy. We are 2/3 the way there and unfortunately you are helping us along to demolish the republic given many people are influenced by you as an authority on this subject.
1. Direct per capita election of the President and Vice President
2. Restrict the Commerce Clause power to allow Congress to legislate in areas that only truly affect interstate commerce, instead of allowing that to be used as an attenuated excuse to regulate everything
3. Insert a provision stating that the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution is not to be restricted to the original intent (to do away with Scalia's shortsighted and silly "strict constructionist" theory)
"2. Restrict the Commerce Clause power to allow Congress to legislate in areas that only truly affect interstate commerce, instead of allowing that to be used as an attenuated excuse to regulate everything"
I wholly support this idea. Anyone who thinks otherwise need only go read US v. Lopez and ponder what would be outside the scope of the commerce clause with the reasoning put forth by the US Gov't Attorney...
I would be in favor of changing the electoral college in 2 ways. One would be winner-take-all for all 50 states, but each state would only receive one vote, meaning that it would take 26 votes to win the election. Or the other way, (and this would actually force the candidates to campaign more than just a few pockets). What you do, is 270 votes would still be required, but what would happen is each state would get as many electoral votes as house plus the senate with the 2 senatorial votes going to the candidate that wins the most house districts.(example, if a state has 9 house districts, one candidate would get a vote for each of the 9 house districts that they carry, and if they win 6, then they get 2 additional senatorial seats) If there is a tie, one senatorial votes goes for each candidate
Finally the progressives tip their hand. Iceland's economy collapses, they get a new constitution. America's economy collapses, we have to get one, too. And Obama's efforts, such as sweeping regulations by the EPA bureaucrats, are doing plenty to help our economy collapse.
You'll get our Constitution when you pry it out of our cold, dead hands.
My change to the constitution would be to suspend the constitution for the next 10 years and grant Bill Gates complete authority to run the country however he saw fit. Sounds crazy? Think about it. The country is a mess because we can't agree on anything and politicians have no courage to make tough decisions. The country is in a state of decline and will loss its premiere status if we don't act fast. Who better to take over? Bill gates is a genius, non partisan, universally respected and understands the digital age better than anyone. And you don't have to worry about him stealing all the money cause he has it already. After 10 years, the constitution would go back in effect and we could vote in an entire new set of politicians. This country needs to inpatient for a while and Dr. Gates could be our man.
non-partisan? ummm, Gates is a lefty.
And as far as "suspending" the Constitution to allow 1 person total auto-cratic dictatorial style governing, your other lefty bretheren have already suggested that for your messiah obama.
However, neither is gonna happen – there will be another civil war before that happens.
Some posters have suggested an amendment or two, some have suggested what would we do with a complete write up from scratch. I don't think we need a rewrite, as Article V leave us all of the flexibility we need. Therefore my modest proposal for an amendment, as Fareed reqeusted, followed by some comments.
Article I, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ..". For my amendment, I propose that Article 1, Clause 1 be amended to read that the Members be chosen every THIRD year. In my opinion, this will do several things.
1st ... perhaps 200 years ago ... maybe even 100 or 50 years ago ... 2 years might have been enough time to get things done. I don't believe that is the case any longer. Our world has sped up and become more complex, and I want my representatives to have more time to accomplish the things we elected them to do. In my opinion 2 years is just not enough time in this modern world.
2nd ... I'm sure some of you would agree that our representatives don't get to do a full 2 years worth of work, anyway. At least 25% of that time or more is spent looking at re-election activities. Not their fault, really. It is the system, which is why I would propose this amendment. More time to actually work.
3rd ... and perhaps the Primary Reason for my proposed amendment. Right now, The House election cycle intersects with the Presidential election cycle every 4 yours. It's too much. All we seem to be able to communicate to our representatives is that we want them to posture for the next presidential election. With my amendment, the House election cycle would only intersect with the Presidential election cycle every third Presidential election, that is every 12 years (on the 4th House cycle), instead of every single Presidential election every 4 years (on the 2nd House cycle). There will be more reason for our representatives to work on the things we want them to, rather than trying to jockey for position with a Presidential election.
This is my modest proposal for an amendment to the Constitution, which I believe is the question.
Oh, and by the way. Those who would shove the Constitution in my face and say they are "strict constitutionalists", I have only one thing to say – which is actually the purpose of this exercise.
Article V
The founding fathers, in their great wisdom, realized that there would be need for change.
A few comments:
Some of the posters have exhibited a huge amount of skepticism bordering on a total disrespect for the process we have in place, and the work that is being done. I believe that we have a pretty good system, but it certainly needs both improvement and a healthy dose of attention. Get out and vote, for Pete's sake. And try to think about the place you want to live. Nothing and no one is perfect. I accept that, even about myself. I also accept that I won't always get my way. That's OK too. Sometimes I will, sometimes I won't. It's called compromise.
I have the utmost respect and regard for my congressional representatives from Vermont. Senators Leahy and Sanders (the only true (I)), and Representative Welch. I watch what they do, question them, and – for the most part (remember compromise) – support their positions.
The idea of term limits has been mentioned in several posts. I am totally and absolutely opposed to term limits – with one exception. Presidential power is far reaching, and I support a 2 term limit. Other than that, I will impose my own term limits with my vote. It always amazes me that some people who want the government out of their lives are willing to have the government dictate one of the most important checks we have.
My $.02
Talk about brain power, chucking a constitution and taking requests via twitter, facebook and other social media sites. Now that's progress.
Hey Fareed! How many times do you lefties have to be told? The US is not a democracy...it's a REPUBLIC. The Constitution is, by design, un-democratic. It was never intended to be democratic. The republic was established to protect the rights of the small states so a mob rule would not trample these states who, whether you like it or not, serve a purpose to the rest of us. The EC was devised to make certain we did not fall prey to democracy (i.e. mob rule) ? C'mon, we folks who got a h.s. diploma learned this in 6th grade. I thought you were supposed to be one of them smart fellas.
The U.S. constitution was an attempt to practically apply principles announced in the Declaration of Independence and debated for several years in the Federalist Papers (all of which were published in newspapers) by our founders. These principles had evolved over the past 4,000 years of Judeo-Christianity and western civilization, yet Mr. Zakaria would have us believe that a bunch of guys got together in a back room and emerged with a constitution that they'd made up from scratch. Do not believe him; he is misleading you. Why? Because he wants you to knock America off of its noble foundations and build something crude in its place.
Mr. Zakaria would start by scrapping the electoral college and the states' equal representation in the senate. Of course, both measures would inevitably give us a federal government that is even more unaccountable and divorced from the will of the people than the one we have now because because they would remove safeguards designed to limit known systemic risks to democracy. Bad idea. The voters don't always know best, as is evidenced by their election of an unqualified, ignorant and radically ideological community organizer to the highest office in the land. How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for us? Got a job?
Let's talk common sense. The most critical problems of our time can all be traced back to the fact that our federal government is out of control and must be reduced and severely limited. I would do this with four amendments to the U.S. constitution, namely: (1) A redrafted Article 1 Section 8 that explicitly voids all past jurisprudence interpreting it and that clearly enumerates Congress' legislative power, explicitly denying Congress general welfare, police, and plenary powers, and repealing and prohibiting all past and future Congressional legislation regarding health care, health insurance, education, speech of any kind, air quality, water quality, wildlife, agriculture, and energy (conveying all mineral and ancillary rights of federal lands to the states), and reserving these powers to the states and the people; (2) repeal and replace the 16th amendment with a consumption tax limited to a 10% cumulative rate, and explicitly denying Congress the power to levy taxes on any income, payroll, estate, capital gains, real property transfers or profits, or levy fees or charges to fund entitlements; (3) a balanced budget amendment; (4) a popular initiative process enabling the people to void by popular vote any existing or future supreme court decision that creates positive or negative rights not explicitly and clearly provided for in the first 14 amendments to the constitution, or limits positive or negative rights that explicitly were.
These are good place to start.
Th
Want to update the US Constitution? Fareed, I got two words for you: FUCK YOU.
I am simply amazed! I guess it's true if you whisper something to a person next to you, and have that process repeated ten times, the last person wouldn't be able to come close to what was originally said! And by the way, I am a Veteran & fully willing to defend Our Constitution, the right to discuss it, and the right to even argue about it, but I wouldn't be so arrogant to use my oath as a threat of aggression to my fellow man or woman as justification of personal hatred. The discussion started with a simple story about a country changing it's constitution, and promoting a discussion about Our Constitution and what changes, if any, might be applicable. Our Forefathers sought a more perfect union, not perfection, and gave us great wisdom in it's original precepts, but America has allowed abuses of Our Constitution & promoted misconceptions of it's intent for years through two main motivations, power & greed, and if anything were to be changed in Our Constitution, it would have to be curtailing those motivations by those who serve us, or our hopes of a more perfect union will suffer & possibly dissolve, and we will instead be on a road to dictatorship by proxy-a public figurehead supporting a group of power-hungry, nameless, controllers. We have had problems, we have problems, and we will always have problems, it's called life, and Our Constitution gave us a good beginning to a road map whereby Our union stands despite problems, but the threats we face today, domestic & foreign, are much different than those 200 years ago, and Our Constitution should reflect that, but we are sometimes like spoiled children, demanding perfection, when reality demands we grow, change, compromise, and adapt, yet do it with honesty, humility, and wisdom. Some of what I read after my earlier post is disturbing, degrading, and sadly quite opposite of what Our Constitution gave us to begin our journey with. As one poster contributed, maybe we do need a class on what the Constitution really says, and what it's original intent was & why?
discuss yes but change without going through constitutional process of ratification my super majprity no a peron calling for the disoulution of states into 7 areas hell no that would rob states of their rights
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798
NO OTHER WAY PERIOD
if you realy was a soldier you also would fight to the death against any other path other than above
if you dont then you would be a traitor to your oath its not about you or i its all about that document and what it stands for PERIOD END OF STORY
Mr. Zakaria has no appreciation for the Constitution much less understanding it. We are a Republic not a Democracy for very good reason. Our Founders had plenty of examples of how a mob can totally hijack a country. The Democratic Mob is right now trying to empower illegal aliens to vote to hijack our country for their majority. This is no secret and needs to be said. The Left has done its best to promote end runs around the Constitution, Congress and principally uses the courts and in Obama's case, executive fiat.
No Sir – we do not need a revision of the electoral college nor a lecture from a foreign national who does not appreciate our form of Government and who has no understanding of the thinking behind it.
And if we had some representatives with some spine we would hear a resounding NO from he halls of Congress.
The Constitution protects us from exactly this type of tyranny if it is upheld. You should take a few courses at HIllsdale College and learn the real motivation behind the Constitution and what he founders were thinking.
We do not need your form of Government here. Appreciate this one or leave.
The constitution should recognise other human of the earth as well as a human being.
The constitution should have the provision to trial American corporates according to American law for their unlawful actions in other countries.
'Update the constitution" is code for "Destroy the constitution"
The Constitution is indeed an awe-inspiring document guarding the natural freedoms each person is born with. It was designed to ensure the citizens of the United States enjoy natural freedoms of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Its function is to guarantee that the federal government will not infringe on certain explicit rights and allows the people through elected representation to create laws to govern themselves and society at large. The US Constitution takes on a federalist nature in that it gives specific powers to the federal government and by default all other powers lay with the individual states. Any attempt to nationalize state power will inherently jeopardize federalism and thus the Constitution itself. Movement to eliminate the electoral college is a perfect example of such a jeopardy coming to fruition. The best way to guarantee individual liberty is to limit the power of one central government and divide that power among other governments. That's precisely what federalism does. The true voice of the people is found in state sovereignty, not in the federalization of elections. In fact, big central government and individual freedom cannot coexist and the human experience has taught us that. By their very nature, individual freedom and strong central governments will naturally shove the other out of its way.
Another nature of the US Constitution is that it creates a Republic; not a Democracy. While our republic is democratic in nature the US Constitution avoids forms of direct democracy. Direct democracy is naturally mob rule where the most powerful will always rule over the less powerful. Talk about the inefficiencies of the US Constitution because it is not democratic is actually a compliment to the profound wisdom our Founding Fathers had within them. Democracies plunge nations into chaos and even rebellion. Throughout this nation's 200+ history, there really was only one rebellion which threatened to tear the fabric of unity and national order which a federal government is necessary to maintain. That's really not bad considering the wars and rebellions around the world. In a Republic, elected representatives are chosen to carry out the will of the people. The closer to an individual that representative is, the more representative that individual becomes in government. That, again, attests to the wisdom of state sovereignty. It also attests for the need to be involved in local elections from city council to the local school board.
No need to change nature of the Constitution. Doing so could very well kill such an inspiring document.
Making a constitution overly-malleable defeats the purpose of having a constitution.
The reason Zakaria wants to destroy the US constitution ix because the USA was founded for "ourselves and our posterity" not mexicans and mexican posterity, not pakistanis and pakistani posterity, not asian and asians posterity. Zakaria wants to steal the USA from the posterity of the founders.
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
thought we got rid of the nazi's in ww2 looks like we missed a few ...whats nexts im irish kill the irish look a man is defined by his actions not the color of his skin i served with all races in the army they all bleed red and they are all american
E pluribus unum Latin for "Out of many, one remember that one FROM ALL RACES IN AMERICA WE ARE THE MELTING POT
Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
THIS IS WHAT I DEFEND PEOPLE WHO LIVE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ALL EQUAL UNDER THE LAW EACH STATE EQUAL IN THE SENATE AND EACH PERSON IN THE CONGRESS
When most people today talk about "what America is all about," they NEVER quote the Founding Fathers.
The Founding Fathers, in the Constitution we actually adopted, dedicated America to "ourselves and OUR posterity."
But when most people talk about the Purpose of America today they never quote Washington or Hamilton. They simply quote an inscription on a piece of artwork sent to America by Frenchmen, the Statue of Liberty.
The inscription on that piece of French artwork, the Statue of Liberty, was written by what is now considered America’s Founding Mother, Emma Lazarus, and every word of it is totally opposed to the Constitution we adopted a century before Emma Lazarus got here. Emma Lazarus said that America was brought into existence for foreigners. Any foreigner, of course, had just as much right to it as its founders or their posterity did, as we and our posterity do.
It is fact that America’s Founding Mother, Emma Lazarus, was a Zionist who had two very interesting ideas about America:
1) America belonged to every non-Jew on earth, and to every Jew on earth until Jews could get their own country from which they could exclude all gentiles;
2) White gentiles who founded America were evil, vicious people who took the homeland away from the innocent, idealistic Indians.
Now how can it make any sense that a land taken from its rightful owners has now become the property of every other person on earth (the new rightful owners)?
No one EVER asks how Founding Mother Lazarus came to that conclusion.
It all comes together in Sobsister history. The basis for Sobsister History is that gentiles are not human.
They are pure evil who do only evil things. They have no right to ANY land. They have no right to exist.
That is the foundational outlook you must have firmly in mind if you are a respectable conservative.
your views are the most idiotic i have ever had to read this country was NOT meant for just whites moron
your nothing but a hitler loving nazi who i thought my father had already wiped out in ww2 like i said it seems we missed a few burn any crosses as of late have ya?
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798
NO OTHER WAY PERIOD
YOU WANT TO CHANGE CONSTITUTION YOU MUST USE THIS AND NO OTHER WAY
Well I was somewhat shocked by this article, but then I saw the author. I swear that every post I read by this guy seems in some way anti-American
........how about changing the constitution so that the Federal government can not take more than 10% of your income and that those funds can only be used to protect the border and defend US citizens from external or internal improper force?
We don't need to REVISE the Constitution, we just need to FOLLOW it.
cheers loudly right on BGko
It will be interesting what Z chooses to post since the response is overwhelmingly a smack down of his maroonic idea. Too bad he didnt study history and our founding documents before he shot his mouth off. Shows the shallowness of CNN.
this has to be one of the most idiotic "thought-provoking" exercises i have ever read. i won't trash what has already been trashed, but i don't think i read anything about the sentences "Iceland is home to the world's oldest parliament still in existence, the Althing, set up in 930 A.D. The rocky ledge on which they gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world."
pure stupidity.
representative government started well over 2,000 years ago in ancient greece and later rome. not on a cliff in iceland. and the idea of representative government is to slow down the passions of the "mob" or masses. were the "mob" to craft its own constitution, it would be a disaster. were the political class of today to craft a new constitution, it too, would be a disaster.
just imagine a government that says to its people the best way to find out what is in a 2,000+ page bill is to just make it law would also write a new constitution and say the best way to find out how you will be governed is to make it the law of the land.
fuhgettaboutit!!!! pure stupidity.
that the "great experiment" of the us constitution has survived for so long is testament to the founding principles inscribed within.
I think we should add an amendment that requires socialists to give up their American citizenship and move to ChinA< North korea, cuba, or russia where they can live in their Utopia.
One word, Fareed: "Amendments". There is already a perfectly valid mechanism to update and reform the US Constitution without scrapping it. The structure of the document is wonderful as it is in its ability to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. A huge FAIL of an idea, Fareed.
Ummm, you do know the Senate was set up that way on purpose right? I mean we have representative government on the House side based on population. The Senate was set up as a check on a runaway majority. Maybe you need to go back and learn more about the Constitution before you call for changes to it. Ugh.
Our constituition has aged well. Just because Iceland is revising theirs doesn't mean we need to do the same. Zakaria is once again over his head, discussing a topic he doesn't understand. He would be better off on the gossip pages.
The Founders intended that the House be seen as more closely representing the will of the people than the Senate.
To this end, they provided that members of the House – U.S. Representatives – be elected by and represent limited groups of citizens living in small geographically defined districts within each state.
Senators, on the other hand, are elected by and represent all voters of their state.
When the House considers a bill, individual members tend to base their votes primarily on how the bill might impact the people of their local district, while Senators tend to consider how the bill would impact their state, and nation as a whole.
All members of the House are up for election every two years. In effect, they are always running for election. This insures that members will maintain close personal contact with their local constituents, thus remaining constantly aware of their opinions and needs, and better able to act as their advocates in Washington. Elected for six-year terms, Senators remain somewhat more insulated from the people, thus less likely to be tempted to vote according to the short-term passions of public opinion.
There are well thought out reasons for how our government is laid out...even if the mainstream infotainment media don't grasp or report them...
correct
Our constitution is a minimalist compromise document that divergent parties barely agreed to. Even for it's time, there wasn't enough detail to define how to run a govt. I mean, the 10th Amendment – anything not defined here is reserved for the states of for the people. Which is it? The answer you get still depends on a given person's feelings about what it's being applied to.
After 222 years, we still can't agree what rights we have, and that's not even accounting for all the societal changes since then.
All this "founder's intent" and "original constructionism" has always been bunk designed to make one side feel holy.
Mark – that amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, in one small sentence, lays out EXPLICITLY that the founders wanted our Gov to be that of a Federalist nature, meaning NOT a huge, centralized Federal Gov (as it is now). But rather, the Fed Gov to have limited powers, while most of the powers go to the individual States, or also to the people (meaning, individual choice).
Rob – you're right that *some* of the founding fathers were staunch Federalists and wanted more states rights. Some, like Jefferson wanted the Constitution rewriten every few decades.
What I was getting at was more the irony of the 10th amendment – who decides whether a state or an individual gets control of a right? The Federal courts. There's no clear delineation of which rights go where, how to decide, or even *who* should decide in the Constitution.
People who favor a right to choose say abortion is an individual right. People who oppose it want a federal law against it first but would settle for it to be a *state's* right to legislate.
All kinds of people assert the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but there were 150 years of precedent from the Supreme court ruling that it was a state's right to "well regulate" before the Roberts court threw that out – even though the 2nd amendment has the "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" clause.
The constitution isn't long on specifics and "strict constructionists" are a) picking and choosing *which* founding fathers were important to listen to, b) taking things out of context, and c) overlaying their own personal biases on any particular issue they feel strongly about.
The country has been running essentially off-book since at least 1803 – where in the constitution does it say the *federal* govt can unilaterally purchase territory to expand the country? Where in the constitution does it define the mechanisms for incorporating states?
For that matter, where in the constitution does it say states can't opt out? Where was Lincoln's justification for the civil war, in "strict constructionist" speak?
correct 100 percent sir
last statement of correct was for allhaileris NOT THE ONE ABOVE IT
I've never seen a comment section so polluted with a lack of knowledge and blatant spokespersons for the abolition of the electoral college.
1. Mr. Zakaria: The House of Representatives is population representation while the Senate is state representation. In the house, you have the will of the people while in the Senate you have the will of the states.
2. It may be tempting to just say "let's just start over" and come up with a wish list of all pet peeves you have with the current system to fix. It's also very arrogant. You, like so many on this comment board, think you are smarter than James Madison or Roger Sherman. You're not.
How easy it would be to just start over and get rid of those pesky things that get in the way of a political agenda...yes? That's called a totalitarian system; where you just scrap the laws and recreate them to your desire...no thanks.
I predict that Iceland will only endure more troubles, not less for what they are doing. Iceland is still in love with socialism and they will still embrace socialist ideals and they will be back at this point in no time.
On Sunday you solicited suggestions for modifying the constitution, so here is my suggestion.
I think we should modify congress to become a form of direct democracy. Every citizen should have one vote in congress, and each citizen should be able to select a proxy to exercise their vote. Citizens can change who their proxy is at any time, and they have a week grace period to override their proxy's vote.
So, for example, you could select the Republican Party to be your proxy in government, and a few days later select your local Tea Party to be your proxy. After hearing on the news they voted differently than you would have, you could override the vote they cast as your proxy. Finally, being such a political firebrand, you could forgo having a proxy entirely and cast your own votes.
Best wishes,
Walter S
I think anyone who voted yes on the survey or agrees that the Constitution needs re-written is a complete id10t.
WHY do you need to re-write something that by its very nature and construction allows you to change it through an amendment process. the Constitution is a FRAMEWORK. I havent seen one comment, suggestion, or any other REASONABLE change that couldnt be addressed by an Amendment. And for those of you who think getting an Amendment through is too difficult, how EXACTLY do you think you could get a new Constitution approved if you cant even get a single issue Amendment passed, which I am sure you and maybe 10 other people in the country agree with completely?
That is the new "progressive" (ie, socialist / marxist / communist) mantra. They want to change the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, for they feel that is what kept Al (great climate scientist) Gore from being President. Just go to some of their websites & listen to some of their radio talk shows & it will become pretty clear pretty quickly. Tom Hartman, Stephanie Miller, Norman Goldman, and the violent hate-rhetoric spewing Mike Malloy – I listen to them as often as I can stomach it, because it literally makes me sick once they start spewing their anti-capitalist, pro-communist / socialist mantras.
If they had their ways, we'd have majority (mob) rule, allowing the will of the people to be set by those who live in densely populated areas like LA, San Fran, NYC, etc, while sparsely populated areas would not get a say. They also advocate single-payer (ie, socialized health care), as well as "medicare for all." Their only solution as to how to pay for all of this is of course to tax the "evil" corporations as well as anyone earning more than a pre-determined amount to death.
This is their vision for America – if you think I'm making it up, as I said, please do the research for yourselves.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any moron like Fareed can write about any subject. Fareed has a, 'dude, where's my car?' approach to our Constitution. I mean, really, there weren't even flushing toilets at the founding so we've gotta' change that Constitution, right!? Duh! Fareed is a simpleton and a buffoon.
These are some of my idea’s that might have some merit – maybe in my list there “might: be three that are worthy:
1.) Change US Representative terms to 6 years, and House & Senate term limits to two non-consecutive terms in a lifetime. One-third elected every two years. Would eliminate campaigning on “Our Dollar”, reduce possibility of corruption, no seniority over a period of time for committee heads, new blood – new idea’s.
2.) Eliminate all retirement benefits for Congressional electee’s, these are elected officials, not meant to be a career – only six month stipend to allow to get back into private sector employment.
3.) Flat individual income tax, pay at point of distribution. Greatly reduce IRS payroll, no returns to file, transfer some IRS employees to fraud squad in disability and other entitlement programs.
4.) Entitlement program recipients, earn their entitlement, WPA – CCC type, say twenty hours a week, some would be daycare, some would be temps to lower paid jobs that citizens refuse to work at and compete with our out of hand illegal immigrants – no work no entitlement!
5.) Instill tariffs on those products produced by U.S. companies relocating off shore and sending them back here for assembly – they are reducing our GNP, lining their pockets, rocking our balance of trade, contributing to our unemployment.
6.) Eliminate private financed campaigns for public office – donations to a pool and all qualified candidates share the pool equally,
7.) More communication with the voters daily, weekly, monthly on officials “Report Card” and issues dealt with in the most recent past and in the coming future – easily accessible to all citizens – so they can be more aware of what our employee’s are doing.
Imagine what a new Constitution would look like if it was written today. It would be as long as an entire copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There would have to be compromise to write articles defining the government. Who would compromise? Even the littlest compromise would be viewed as giving the farm away. Compromise would dissolve the convention into chaos. Then the amendments. Would the Bill of Rights stay or go? People believe the Bill of Rights is being assaulted today. What if some of those assaults were constitutionalized? Then every special interest group in the country, plus any supposed influence from outside the country would want an amendment protecting this or that. All these problems if we could even get past establishing a real convention with reasonable rules of order. And in the end, a new Constitution would be unfair to the people, to business, immigration, and this or that minority. And don't forget the Asian Carp working their way to Lake Michigan. The constitution would need to protect them as well.
OH yes here we go again, the liberalisum oh it is not fair, well that is why there is the Senate versus the House
the house of Represenatives is based on population , and the Senate is based upon 2 represenatives per state.
OK for you that do not understand the constution , you should try reading it some time with out your lawyer presnet
because it is in plane ENGLISH not to be reinterperted by view point. SO the senate gives power to the smaller
states, to balance out the pop. based house. what is so hard about that. the Supream court is suppose to
interperate law bases upon the constution and not legislate from the bench {mostof are appointed and not voted in
to that position} The liberal like to legislate from the bench out reaching their true duty on the bench. The Consituion
is just fine the way it is, Yes things have been changed, Like porhibition , all that spawned was powerful crime
orgainzations and legal exemptions just like Obama care. once it was repealed the damage was done... too often
individuals want cahnge for the sake of change and do not and can not understand the massive impact upon
the population , but they do not care they have their own body guards, their own medical no "obamacare" their
own retirement not SSN, Being a reprenseative for the people was suppose to be a privalage and not a PROFESSION!!
maybe the congress should go back to that , illimainate the IRS have a flat tax, give congres individuals stipend
budget that they have to stay with in or pay their OWN way like the CITIZENS of America do!! Secure the borders
of our nation like every other country does, ILLEGALS AND CRIMINALS they do not belong here too many are
criminals and killing the citizens of this country like the 3 in Virginia by illegals driving drunk. We should be
following the constution and adhering to its principals!!
I think that the constitution should change the way we elect our president and both houses of congress.
1. There should be a "primary" day when all primaries are held that way states like Iowa and New Hampshire won't be overly weighted.
2. To promote a system with room for more than 2 parties, and no "spoiler" candidates, we make it a 50% + to win an election. If no one has more than 50%, the top 2 candidates have a run off.
I also think that our judicial system needs overhaul. Although, this would probably be better on a state by state basis to "test" out better systems. I think we should have professional jurors. The jurors then could have a good understanding of the laws and necessary science, be less likely to be threatened or paid off, and be willing participants. This could substantially cut the time needed for trials, as well as short cut an overly lengthy appeals process. And, I do not think a unanimous vote should be necessary. Should it be two-thirds? Three-quarters? 12 of 16 people. I don't know the answer but I do think it's time we look for solutions.
The 3rd change I'd like to see is change in our immigration laws. We have always had illegal immigration. We have never had a cohesive plan to deal with it. It's a fact of life. Let's stop arguing and find a permanent solution. Undocumented workers cost us billions in lost tax revenue, education, and healthcare. They also do jobs that Americans refuse to do, and add so much culture to our communities. Let's stop doing this injustice to them and to ourselves. Maybe we should make a huge penalty for any business that hires illegals but, make it much easier to get temp work visas and allow immigrants to look for jobs once they are here. A dishwasher or landscaper is not going to get a job before they get to America. The HB1 visas hurt us far more. Besides, the border crossing for young women should be an affront to ALL women. The incidence of rape and other atrocities is extremely high. Also, we should be able to track everyone here in order to better fight terrorism.
Fareed Zakaria is an absolute tool. How much does George Soros pay you Fareed? The Constitution will not be rewritten. The radical left is playing a dangerous game that could quite possibly lead to another civil war. Perhaps it is time for an American spring in which we throw off the shackles of the elites and and their media whores.
Whoa, we're gonna get our heads handed to us again in 2012 so quick, think of something. I know, let's change the constitution, about which I apparently know very little outside a quicky Wikipedia check because it's old like even before bathrooms. I think it's more than 100 years old- at least according to one of my journalistic colleagues.
The beauty of the constutution is that is was constructed to withstand ill-informed, self-serving onslaughts like yours.
I'm not sure there's much point in changing anything in the Constitution. Our elected leaders haven't been paying any attention to it for years.
No. We can amend the Constitution as needed. To throw out the work of hundreds of years and start over is nonsense. Unless you know where you came from you may repeat some mistakes. the Founding Fathers created a document for the ages, one which created the greatest Republc government in history.
It may be time for CNN to find someone else for this job.
No, we don't need a new Constitution. Nope, we don't need a bunch of facebookers to suggest faddish change. No, we don't need mob rule from the biggest states, liike California, telling the rest of the country how they're going to live.
I'm from CA and they have screwed up their situation mightily already. A better suggestion would be to advise that state to clean up it's own act so that we don't end up bailing them out as a nation.
Our system WORKS. i'm sure that it's frustrating for the far left that the voices of the right and the middle have to be listened to under our current system. Learn to deal with it as we're not giving up our voice.
Iceland is doing something else that's well worth considering.....prosecuting bankers involved in their financial crisis which crippled their country.
BTW The public was also successful forcing resignation of its PM who was in power during the wheeling dealing period.
Many lessons our country and citizens can learn.
1. We have an amendment system built into the constitution, so we don't need to junk the whole thing. 2. We have the senate specifically because we wanted the states with small populations to have equal representation as those with large ones. We have the house in order to give all states representation based on population. I'm pretty sure California has 53 representatives in the house, Wyoming has 1. Without the senate, the 500,000 people in wyoming would literally have no effect on the political system. 3. It would make sense to ditch the electoral college. It's only disagreed with the nation 4 times in history, so dismantling it would only help. 4. Iceland has a population of 300,000 people, less than wyoming, and one of the best internet infrastructures in the world. Imagine the chaos of 300,000,000 Americans giving out all of their ideas at once, and the outrage of those who either had their ideas ignored or never were able to get their ideas out due to poor internet infrastructure.
I have to disagree on the Electoral College. It is there for the exact reason as the Senate. It gives a handicap to the smaller states. You think it would be bad for a state to be underrepresented in the Congress...what about the presidency. For those who want to have the college split its vote as a proportion of it's votes...Start with New York and California. Let's negate 45% of the Liberal vote there first.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska - 70%, DC - 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine - 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska - 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada - 72%, New Mexico - 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island - 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont - 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%;
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
Our financial crisis wasn't caused by the US Constitution, but by the same corrupt policies, imposed by Bill Clinton during his term in the white house, the same corrupt policies embraced by Barack Obama, and in fact, the same corrupt policies Fareed that you demand be imposed. What Fareed demands is the ability to eliminate all our rights and freedoms, so the US can be reduced to a failed state, so the same people who pay him, can run roughshod over all our rights and freedoms. Fareed wants the US reduced to a plantation slavery state.
Heaven help us all. A constitution built on mob mentality, rather than by some of the greatest minds in history who had done more historical research on the prosperity and fall of empires than any combined body in history. New Bill of Rights.
1. Everyone is entitled to a $100,000 salary while working a 20 hour work week.
2. Kids don't have to eat greenbeans if their mom says they do.
3. Free Play station for all.
4. Bad guys are not allowed to have guns or to be mean.
5. I have the right to shut someone up if they're saying something I don't like.
6. Everyone has to follow my religion...whatever it is, atheism, Christian, Muslim. Enter biggest religion here.
Sounds like it was written by a bunch of kindergarteners. But some of these popular sentiments are some of the biggest complaints about the Constitution.
A) The Electoral College protects the small states. Otherwise they would be completely ignored as nat'l candidiates pursued the population centers. B) As a republic, each state has equal representation in one house of Congress, the Senate. You want representation based on population, look to the House. C) The fact that the Constitution has been amended more than two dozen times says that it is living and current with evolving nat'l standards. The beauty of the document is in its simplicity, outlining broad duties. It is THAT framework which we cherish. D) The 2000 presidential election in FL was so razor thin that virtually ANY system in s state with 18 million people would be hard pressed to say with absolute certainty on the first count who won. And again, we are a republic. There were many more local races on the Florida ballot in 2000 that the one presidential contest. Each state, within standards, meets those standards as best as their circumstances permit. Live with the concept. E) Many states make a new constitution every ten years, including FL and TX. Both have been in the union since the mid 1800's. So? I don't find that a compelling argument to do similar with the nat'l document.
Under the current system, 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
Senator Robert E. Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee for President in 1996 and Republican nominee for Vice President in 1976, stated in a 1979 floor speech:
“Many persons have the impression that the electoral college benefits those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a misconception. Through my experience with the Republican National Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1976, it became very clear that the populous states with their large blocks of electoral votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused our efforts.
“Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.
“Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in States that are perceived to be single party states.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska - 70%, DC - 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine - 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska - 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada - 72%, New Mexico - 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island - 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont - 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%;
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
THATS A LIE
I do try to listen to several news sites, however, I will no longer listen to Zakaria. Can he be any more "in your face" about his leanings? I'm sure he wants to change the US Constitution- he wants to help Obama continued obliteration of our rights. Listen to Mark Levin's responsehttp://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/20/mark-levin-gives-fareed-zakaria-much-needed-lesson-us-constitution to this miscreant:
"The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent."
I gather this is supposed to be a criticism... I'm not sure I understand why, however. The judiciary is a great deal more 'undemocratic" than the electoral college, isn't it? Should we fix that, too? When you get right down to it, why have a legislature at all? We could use the internet to vote on everything, and re