3 Constitution Candidates have been Presented for Public Review

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

They did not invite the distinguished members of the Debate Politics forum to participate, but they do have an open invitation.

Constitution Drafting Project | Constitution Center

The Constitution Drafting Project brings together three teams of leading constitutional scholars—team libertarian, team progressive, and team conservative—to draft and present their ideal constitutions.

constitutioncenter.org

​	​	​
When we were asked to draft the “progressive” Constitution, we recognized that the task came with baggage. Progressives’ relationship with the Constitution has long been fraught. At various points in history, progressives have loudly complained that the Constitution ratified in 1788 was designed for an agrarian society of slaveholding white males. It created sclerotic political institutions that are frightfully ill-equipped to meet the demands of a modern, global, and pluralistic society.	This was probably an easier project for us than for our conservative and progressive counterparts because the current United States Constitution is fundamentally a libertarian or, more precisely, classical liberal document. So much so that, at the outset, we joked that all we needed to do was to add “and we mean it” at the end of every clause.	As conservatives, we were tempted to leave the Constitution largely unchanged, amending only those provisions most obviously in need of alteration. However, in the spirit of the NCC’s project, we attempted to think more boldly and propose changes that we believe would improve the Constitution to meet the exigencies of our era. Above all — and this is the real point of the exercise — we hope that our efforts will spur constructive discussion of the purposes of a constitution for a free people dedicated to the experiment in self-government.
Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law School Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School Melissa Murray of New York University School of Law	Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School	Robert P. George of Princeton University Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School Colleen A. Sheehan of Arizona State University Ilan Wurman of Arizona State University College of Law

Let's not disappoint the organizers of the project, nor the distinguished composers.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

I am a little disappointed that all three groups merely rewrote the federal Constitution, rather than completely reordering it using modern technology; but I am not surprised. Of the three other proposed replacement constitutions published, only one has a reordering scheme.

Sign in - Google Accounts

sites.google.com

New USA Constitution - Table of Contents

Proposal for a New US Constitution - Table of Contents of the Draft Constitution

usreconstitution.net

https://tomsblogaroonie.wordpress.c...-the-second-constitution-of-38jyd65oa42fm-39/

Although, they are accomplished scholars, they, like the common folks, cannot imagine a better separation model. Although, every federal attorney general is accused of bias ignorance of his appointment - nobody seems to be able to figure out how to separate the Justice Department from the presidency; and we have to believe that somehow an unbiased independent prosecutor can be found to investigate the president.

And the Judiciary is not a separate entity if it relies on the other entities to graduate its hierarchy of offices.

 

[Rich2018]

A lot to go through at once.

I particularly like extending a member of the House of Representatives term to 4 years and a senator's term to 6 years with no chance of re-election.

I would allow legal residents the vote

But I would also divorce the offices of head of state (which would become largely ceremonial) and head of government

I would also mandate all states to register all eligible voters and adopt mandatory voting (actually it's really more a case of mandatory participation in the electoral system).

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A lot to go through at once.

I particularly like extending a member of the House of Representatives term to 4 years and a senator's term to 6 years with no chance of re-election.

I would allow legal residents the vote

But I would also divorce the offices of head of state (which would become largely ceremonial) and head of government

I would also mandate all states to register all eligible voters and adopt mandatory voting (actually it's really more a case of mandatory participation in the electoral system).

no, election boycotts are a fundamental human right. It also violates the rights of anti-democracy advocates like me to reject the system.

 

[Rich2018]

no, election boycotts are a fundamental human right. It also violates the rights of anti-democracy advocates like me to reject the system.

No it's not a fundamental right

And if you merely wanted to protest you could simply talk your voting slip and walk out of the voting station (or leave your vote blank in a postal vote)

I used to think your way, but if you look at it, it makes the government (and opposition parties too) more sensitive to public opinion, not just the opinion of those they think will vote

The people generally disenfranchised now are generally the poorer demographic with more to gain from political change...yet it's not surprise that that are the demographics that right wing governments actively seek to discourage from voting.

I'd make voting not a right, but a duty. In the same way you are obligated to do jury duty or register for select services if you're a young male.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

The Constitution Is Basically Fine the Way It Is | National Review

Rewriting the document is a fun academic exercise, though.

www.nationalreview.com

The results are, more than anything, a testament to the enduring power of the original.

Heck, even the progressives sing the original Constitution’s praises and push back against claims that it’s “antithetical to a progressive vision of a government powerful enough to promote the public good while constrained by judges committed to protecting fundamental human rights.” They also resist the temptation to write “positive rights” — say, a right to health care — into the document, opting to leave such decisions to the political process.

 

[Rich2018]

The Constitution Is Basically Fine the Way It Is | National Review

Rewriting the document is a fun academic exercise, though.

www.nationalreview.com

The Constitution is definitely not "fine" the way it is.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

They did not invite the distinguished members of the Debate Politics forum to participate, but they do have an open invitation.

Let's not disappoint the organizers of the project, nor the distinguished composers.

I just finished listening to the National Constitution Center podcast featuring representatives from each of the three groups. I look forward to looking over them and discussing.

 

[Antiwar]

Did any of them draft a Bill of Wrongs? That's one of the biggest things wrong with the Constitution.

 

[Rich2018]

I just finished listening to the National Constitution Center podcast featuring representatives from each of the three groups. I look forward to looking over them and discussing.

What THREE groups ?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What THREE groups ?

Uh, the drafters of the progressive, libertarian, and conservative constitutions?

 

[Luce]

I started with the conservative one, and it has some interesting ideas.

However, they make the classic mistake of treating the national budget the way we'd treat home budgets.

 

[Luce]

The libertarian one had a lot of good ideas, but a few old saws crept in to make it a train wreck.

 

[Luce]

Arg. The progressive one is a mess.

 

[Rich2018]

Uh, the drafters of the progressive, libertarian, and conservative constitutions?

Oh yes, I saw them

Interesting document but none, in my mind address the root weakness of American democracy which is the combination of the heads of government and state into one.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Oh yes, I saw them

Interesting document but none, in my mind address the root weakness of American democracy which is the combination of the heads of government and state into one.

I completely fail to see any problem with this structure. Why don't you explain it.

 

[Rich2018]

I completely fail to see any problem with this structure. Why don't you explain it.

Because it focuses too much power in one office

You lose the diplomatic advantage of having a a-political figure as head of state, who commands universal respect and admiration. There are some things that a head of state does, that should not be politicized for political gain. Trump has shown he will act shamelessly to squeeze political capital from any event, when an undignified grab to claim credit is at best unwanted

Trump has shown that the office of president needs a greater check. He nearly and conceivably could have stolen this election and completely undermined American democracy

Having a regular two year political cycle can (and often does) lead to a lame duck president who can do nothing in face of a hostile Congress. This leads to political inertia. Whereas a parliamentary system would see the head of government as the person in the House who commands majority support. At present this is Nancy Pelosi - but if her party lose control of the House, she is replaced as speaker.
So the leader of the House (head of government) always has the support of at least one part of the legislature.

Lastly, it is no coincidence that tin pot dictatorships around the world invariably have a presidential form of government, whereas Westernized democracies almost always have a parliamentary system as it's more stable and more flexible.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Because it focuses too much power in one office

You lose the diplomatic advantage of having a a-political figure as head of state, who commands universal respect and admiration. There are some things that a head of state does, that should not be politicized for political gain. Trump has shown he will act shamelessly to squeeze political capital from any event, when an undignified grab to claim credit is at best unwanted

Trump has shown that the office of president needs a greater check. He nearly and conceivably could have stolen this election and completely undermined American democracy

Having a regular two year political cycle can (and often does) lead to a lame duck president who can do nothing in face of a hostile Congress. This leads to political inertia. Whereas a parliamentary system would see the head of government as the person in the House who commands majority support. At present this is Nancy Pelosi - but if her party lose control of the House, she is replaced as speaker.
So the leader of the House (head of government) always has the support of at least one part of the legislature.

Lastly, it is no coincidence that tin pot dictatorships around the world invariably have a presidential form of government, whereas Westernized democracies almost always have a parliamentary system as it's more stable and more flexible.

Disagree.

 

[Rich2018]

Disagree.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment

Next time can you say hy, otherwise you sound like an inarticulate teenager who reviews a movie he didn't like as "cr@p".

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment

Next time can you say hy, otherwise you sound like an inarticulate teenager who reviews a movie he didn't like as "cr@p".

It's a judgement call. An opinion. I don't think it important enough to craft a response.

 

[Rich2018]

It's a judgement call. An opinion. I don't think it important enough to craft a response.

You get the idea

Dad: "what did you think of the movie son ?"

Jr: "It was rubbish"

End of debate.

 

[Casper]

The libertarian one had a lot of good ideas, but a few old saws crept in to make it a train wreck.

That is Always the way it is with Libertarian's, you listen to them and go now that sounds good but then they keep talking and the train wreck happens.

 

[Rich2018]

That is Always the way it is with Libertarian's, you listen to them and go now that sounds good but then they keep talking and the train wreck happens.

I don't like the term "libertarian"

I can't actually see the difference between libertarian and liberal.

 

[OlNate]

no, election boycotts are a fundamental human right. It also violates the rights of anti-democracy advocates like me to reject the system.

What's an anti-democracy advocate?

 

[OlNate]

A lot to go through at once.

I particularly like extending a member of the House of Representatives term to 4 years and a senator's term to 6 years with no chance of re-election.

I would allow legal residents the vote

But I would also divorce the offices of head of state (which would become largely ceremonial) and head of government

I would also mandate all states to register all eligible voters and adopt mandatory voting (actually it's really more a case of mandatory participation in the electoral system).

Hmm...I would be hesitant about extending terms while eliminating the chance for re-election. What you're proposing is a perfect cash grab scenario. Once they get in, they have no incentive against acting purely in their own interest, given that they can't get reelected anyway, and a long window of time within which to respond... Seems like inviting disaster...