A Constitutional Convention in 2006

Great! My most urgent topic is Government. The United States government in particular. The 13 colonies began the Revolution in April, 1775, although we prefer July 4, 1776 as the start up date. Representatives of the colonies met in Philadelphia and created the United States of America - the name given to us in the Articles of Confederation, done in 1777.

That document created a unicameral legislature. It failed in two respects. It lacked an effective executive and it failed to have tax or revenue raising powers. The former function was exercised by Committee of the States, made up of 1 member from each state. A vote of 9 was required to take any action.

To raise revenue, the individual states agreed to contribute to a common fund based on the value of the land within their borders. The Articles worked well enough to give us the decisive victory at Yorktown, in 1781. The peace treaty was done at Paris in 1783. The treaty was delayed in part by the hope of the British that the colonists would relent and return to the kingdom.

In the colonies, the general consensus was growing that the Articles were inadequate to the new nation’s needs. A second Constitutional Convention was called to meet in Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love was America’s largest city and was centrally located. The new document was done in 1787 and submitted to the 13 colonies. 10 states had ratified in time for an election in 1789. (Should have been held in 1788 but the first election was late.) Only 10 states voted in the first election. New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island were to late ratifying the new document to participate.

I have said all that to say this: This document is not adequate to our needs in 2006. We have a president that is unpopular and who, if we had a parliamentary system, would most likely have been booted from office after Katrina. We, however, are saddled with him until January 20, 2009. Like him, like his policies, or not.

In 1787, we were familiar with the institutions of kings and queens. The monarchy. The monarch held office for his or her lifetime. We choose to limit our executive to a four year term in 1787, which musts have seemed an extremely short time period. I therefore want to alter our current Constitution to provide for re-call of the president before the completion of his term of office.

Congress. Congress is micro-managing America. It must be that all the 535 elected members of the House and Senate imagine themselves as being the president. If you will listen to CSpan or CSpan 2 you will hear the most tedious and most exaggerated goings-on which pass for committee hearings. It is an impossible task. The current US budget is $2.75 T. We used to lament we could not comprehend billions, and now we are dealing with trillions. There are many things that only Congress can do, but trying to get a handle on the budget is not one of them. Micro-managing must end.

Judiciary. The great strength of the Federal judiciary is the lifetime appointment. And, add the provision that Congress cannot reduce their salary. Even the lower court judges, the District Courts, are each appointed by the President and approve d by the Congress. This means that higher court judges are not the bosses of the lower court judges. A district court judge need not bow to an Appeals court judge or even to a supreme court justice. They are on equal footing in that rearward.

But I don’t like the right leaning judges appointed by Reagan and the Bush41 and Bush43. I don’t like them enough I am willing to give up the lifetime anointment. What we needed in 1789 is not necessarily what we need in 2006. To travel from Charleston - the richest city in America back then - to Boston, the leading intellectual city, could take 8 weeks in the winter.

Times are more demanding. Communications are instanteous and more capable. I suggest we make Federal judge adornment for a single 15 year term if the appointee is under age 55, and for a single 10 year term if over 55. I believe this would put the judges beyond undue political influence, if that is even possible with lifetime appointments which was the rationale.

Bureaucracy. Civil Service. I will add an addendum for this most important change in our Constitution. We must find some way to incorporate a decent, skilled and energetic Civil Service. This is the bedrock of a democracy and we are killing it, shooting ourselves in the foot.

Back Later.



[edit on 7/15/2006 by donwhite]

Riiiight. So you rather enjoy left leaning judges? And the point to end a life term for judges is in hope liberals will occupy the bench more often? I don't like the life time appointment either but the reasons you give for wanting it to change are not credible.

There's a saying that federal judges are annointed, not appointed, which is aimed at the hubris that some of the judges adopt, since there is almost no recourse to their actions, specifically their setting of political agendas. I understand why you are interested in such a course of action, and I also see a need to have some way to make sure that judges follow the existing law, instead of creating thier own. But both left and right leaning judges do this, so to want to change just because you don't like Reagan's appointees is wanting the right thing for the wrong reasons. Just limiting the terms will only help in that they can only manipulate law for 15 years instead of 30 or so, or however long those folks live.

The big problem, as I see it, with coming up with an some kind of method of accountability is that it also has the potential to punish judges for political reasons. Again, another thing I don't want.

I think that some answer may rest in a faster acting legislature, which is what I think you were getting at. It is definitely cumbersome, and most of the members of the Senate do have Presidential aspirations. This is a little tounge in cheek, but maybe legislation should cover one item only, no riders, and contain no more than 2000 words. It should be posted online so that every citizen can read it before hand, and there should be a psudo-vote where each jurisdictions' representative gets a head count on which way his constituency wants him to go.

Any thoughts on that?

Finally found part one.

Getting rid of the lifetime appointment for federal judges is long overdue. The godlike supposed omnicence (sp?) that so many of them adopt once on the bench all too often flies in the face of the stated will of the people by a majority vote.

My modest proposal would be to have very limited terms for judges say between 5 to 10 years. They can return to the federal bench after a short 4 year absence. That would be sufficient to remind them that they aren't God, nor godlike in their supposed wisdom.

Don. Love your posts. Very seldom agree totally, but also very seldom disagree totally. Any way, great posts.

by Donwhite:

The current US budget is $2.75 T. We used to lament we could not comprehend billions, and now we are dealing with trillions. There are many things that only Congress can do, but trying to get a handle on the budget is not one of them.

REPLY: Currently, our decifit is 2.3% of GDP, which happens to be the 40 year average, inflation adjusted. Quite manageable.

".... I don’t like the right leaning judges...."

REPLY Most of those judges would be more accurately called "Constitutional" judges.

This is the bedrock of a democracy and we are killing it, shooting ourselves in the foot.

REPLY: America never has been a democracy. I'd rather put the term limit back on Congress. That ammendment moved us away from the Constitution more than any other, and has been the most damaging. I also believe that an age limit of Senators/Congress would be a good thing. The age limit for a commercial pilot is 65, yet we have senile 65+ people making decisions that efeect our laws and people.

There's a saying that federal judges are annointed, not appointed, which is aimed at the hubris that some of the judges adopt, since there is almost no recourse to their actions, specifically their setting of political agendas.

REPLY: That is the problem.... they believe they are the end-all be-all to the law, which is a power the Constitution does not give them. They are merely there to decide on matter of Constitutionality.