Fareed Zakaria wants a do-over on the Constitution

[Erod]

Why does CNN champion Fareed Zakaria? The guy's constant theme is that America is not really that great. That we're headed for a capitalistic implosion. He exhausts it.

And now he wants to re-write our Constitition.

Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution? – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

Could this dude be any more clueless? Does he not get why the House is set up like it is, and the Senate like it is, so that smaller states and smaller constituencies aren't lost in the process?

He doesn't even understand that we are not a democracy, we are a republic. And he repeats over and over how "undemocratic" this and that are. Yes, Fareed, that's the point, dumb***.

Like most liberals, he wants everything in this country decided by New York City and LA. Screw the folks in Wichita or Omaha; they're not really in America. They just feed the smart people in New York. They're the peasantry in his aristocratic dream.

The founders were truly genius. They knew dipsticks like this clown were inevitably going to come around, and they wrote a Constitution to protect us from them.

No, Fareed, you can't change the Constitution. Now, get back to "reporting" to us how we're headed for anhihilation.

 

[Helvidius]

The issue he had with varying populations is already addressed; it is called the House of Representatives. I don't think he wanted to revamp the Constitution, just propose an amendment. The 17th Amendment of the Constitution already changed Senators from being elected by state legislators to being elected by popular vote. So there is a precedent that has been set even if I don't agree with it. I'd like to see a runoff system where you get two round of voting. Perhaps we could break up this left/right wing paradigm. Of course, we would need a Constitutional amendment first.

 

[StillBallin75]

There's nothing new about the idea of updating the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson actually once proposed that the Constitution should become automatically obsolete once every generation or so. And if you think about it, isn't it kind of ****ed up that the 560,000 citizens of Wyoming two representatives in the Senate than the 600,000 citizens of washington, DC have absolutely none (or at least none that vote)? Why is it okay to have power out of all proportion to your population?

As for all of Zakaria's predictions about the future not being bring for America, I just see that as facing reality. Look around you dude, look at American political history over the past decade, and say with a straight face that Zakaria is wrong in his predictions.

 

[Fiddytree]

There's nothing new about the idea of updating the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson actually once proposed that the Constitution should automatically obsolete once every generation or so. And if you think about it, isn't it kind of ****ed up that the 560,000 citizens of Wyoming have more power in the Senate than the 600,000 citizens of washington, DC? Why is it okay to have power out of all proportion in relation to your population?

As for all of Zakaria's predictions about the future not being bring for America, I just see that as facing reality. Look around you dude, look at American political history over the past decade, and say with a straight face that Zakaria is wrong in his predictions.

Because we don't want to be jerked around by the big states.

 

[StillBallin75]

Because we don't want to be jerked around by the big states.

The so-called "big states" are hardly unified themselves, politically speaking. They're not really even able to jerk themselves around at the national level.

 

[toddwv]

His argument is sound and has merit. Things haven't just changed, they have changed dramatically.

That being said, I'm not sure i want the ideologues of other side doing a complete rewrite on the Constitution. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[Fiddytree]

The so-called "big states" are hardly unified themselves, politically speaking. They're not really even able to jerk themselves around at the national level.

Look, it's what we got and it's what we small states need. The basic reasoning has still stayed important since it was around.

The document is fine and has an amendment process that is just fine as well.

 

[Jeezy]

From the article:

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.

We've had 56 presidential elections in the history of this country. A candidate winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote has only happened a grand total of four times...over a period of 219 years.

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.

...isn't this why we have the House of Representatives?

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.

Belgium. Or like...any nation in Europe where an upper house majority is required to even FORM a government.





I don't dislike Fareed Zakaria, but this article is kind of weird. I expected better.

 

[Wiseone]

"The American Constitution is an extraordinary work, one of the greatest expression of liberty and law in human history." GET THAT COMMIE OFF THE TV!!!!

All he's suggesting is that the Senate is undemocratic because it has two reps per states, and that the electoral college is undemocratic because it allows someone who doesn't have the majority vote to be President. Personally I disagree with his point but frankly I feel there's a greater ignorance at work here. Namely the notion that A) The founders wanted to protect you from Fareed Zakaria, and B) that the Constitution was never meant to change.

He clearly pointed out and its undeniable that the document has changed in bot wording and interpretation since it was written, the ink wasn't even dry before its meaning changed. Hell the Founder's themselves didn't even agree on what everything meant as they were writing it. Or look at the SCOTUS like Zakaria says, its power in the Constitution isn't well defined but its certainly grown into a major player in American government.

So no, the sky isn't falling, no one is trying to crush you under a boot of repression. The entire reason we have an amendment process for the Constitution is so people can suggest and elect leaders and reps who will REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION, its happened plenty of times before don't act as if this document is something which should be frozen in time while we move forward to radically different societies than the document was ever meant to address.

 

[StillBallin75]

Look, it's what we got and it's what we small states need. The basic reasoning has still stayed important since it was around.

The document is fine and has an amendment process that is just fine as well.

Disagree.

123

 

[Fiddytree]

Disagree.

123

I'll take you on like it's 1789! (Don't judge. It always sounds better with a 9 involved.)

 

[StillBallin75]

From the article:



We've had 56 presidential elections in the history of this country. A candidate winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote has only happened a grand total of four times...over a period of 219 years.



...isn't this why we have the House of Representatives?



Belgium. Or like...any nation in Europe where an upper house majority is required to even FORM a government.





I don't dislike Fareed Zakaria, but this article is kind of weird. I expected better.

The point is that having a such a system essentially negates the one-man, one-vote ideal despite the existence of the House of Representatives, since for legislation to go into effect it has to pass both Houses.

 

[other]

The point is that having a such a system essentially negates the one-man, one-vote ideal despite the existence of the House of Representatives, since for legislation to go into effect it has to pass both Houses.

It is a negation, in a sense, as it is a system designed along the line of checks and balances. It's why we set up the bicameral legislature we have, with democratic and non-democratic elements designed to allow for democratic processes while at the same time keeping them in check. It was no secret then and isn't now that direct democracies lead to tyrannies.

If someone advocates for the disintegration of such systems they might as well argue just as vehemently for the dissolution of the states altogether -- what purpose would they serve if the nation was run only by the major population centers on the east/west coasts, without any check built in to allow for the less population-dense states to have an impact in a centralized government in which they deserve some share of actual representation... Among other things, they do grow most of our food, for consumption and export, after all.

 

[rocket88]

And now he wants to re-write our Constitition.

So does Michele Bachmann. She wants to "amend" it, which is just a fancy word for re-write.

I'm not a fan of Zakaria, but there's plenty of fervor to amend the Constitution. It seems like everybody on either side who doesn't like something about it wants to change it.

 

[Councilman]

Icelanders are off there nut id they think the following is a good source of intelligent ideas.

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.

Icelanders are off there nut id they think the following is a good source of intelligent ideas. 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.

Please note that both NY, and CA are going down for the count and they owe it all to Liberals idiots.

Our Constitution serves us will and needs no major changes. Especially by Liberals who in many cases seem to hate what our Nation stands for.

 

[StillBallin75]

It is a negation, in a sense, as it is a system designed along the line of checks and balances. It's why we set up the bicameral legislature we have, with democratic and non-democratic elements designed to allow for democratic processes while at the same time keeping them in check. It was no secret then and isn't now that direct democracies lead to tyrannies.

If someone advocates for the disintegration of such systems they might as well argue just as vehemently for the dissolution of the states altogether -- what purpose would they serve if the nation was run only by the major population centers on the east/west coasts, without any check built in to allow for the less population-dense states to have an impact in a centralized government in which they deserve some share of actual representation... Among other things, they do grow most of our food, for consumption and export, after all.

You bring up some good points, however I think that the belief that we would be "run by the coasts" if the current system disintegrated is somewhat overstated. The interests of the people living on the coasts are hardly unified nor necessarily in opposition to the interests of those living in the heartland, after all.

 

[other]

So does Michele Bachmann. She wants to "amend" it, which is just a fancy word for re-write.

I'm not a fan of Zakaria, but there's plenty of fervor to amend the Constitution. It seems like everybody on either side who doesn't like something about it wants to change it.

Problem for Zakaria is that his amendment would never fly because amendments require 2/3 of the states. Can't see most of the mid-west signing on to flush their already limited influence in Washington down the drain... or the south, for that matter.

 

[Fiddytree]

You bring up some good points, however I think that the belief that we would be "run by the coasts" if the current system disintegrated is somewhat overstated. The interests of the people living on the coasts are hardly unified nor necessarily in opposition to the interests of those living in the heartland, after all.

You would be seeing a great deal of simple, basic divisions that come about as a result of industry, agriculture, and population that seem to be non-existent now, but always were there, even if buried deep.

 

[other]

You bring up some good points, however I think that the belief that we would be "run by the coasts" if the current system disintegrated is somewhat overstated. The interests of the people living on the coasts are hardly unified nor necessarily in opposition to the interests of those living in the heartland, after all.

That depends on the issue. Most can easily recognize political difference (ideologically) between a New-York lawyer and a potato farmer in Idaho, though there are always exceptions. Point is, without the senate, would a pressing issue for the potato farmer get more, the same amount, or less attention in Washington than the NY lawyer if they were both represented strictly by population alone? A strict system of one man, one vote really shafts less populous regions when regional issues are at stake.

In this aspect, our country today is really not all that different than it was in the 1780s. Back then, the less populous areas easily recognized the problem, and the country and society, as a whole, was more homogenous and and less expansive back then.

 

[StillBallin75]

That depends on the issue. Most can easily recognize political difference (ideologically) between a New-York lawyer and a potato farmer in Idaho, though there are always exceptions. Point is, without the senate, would a pressing issue for the potato farmer get more, the same amount, or less attention in Washington than the NY lawyer if they were both represented strictly by population alone? A strict system of one man, one vote really shafts less populous regions when regional issues are at stake.

In this aspect, our country today is really not all that different than it was in the 1780s. Back then, the less populous areas easily recognized the problem, and the country and society, as a whole, was more homogenous and and less expansive back then.

I'm not sure if I buy this argument, but I think this sparks a really good discussion about the concept of what exactly "fair representation" should look like.

 

[other]

I'm not sure if I buy this argument, but I think this sparks a really good discussion about the concept of what exactly "fair representation" should look like.

I'll ask then... Where would you draw a line as far as democracy is concerned for America? Are you for a straight up direct system -- One man, one vote -- without any other check in the national legislature? A Unicameral legislature with only seats directly apportioned to better and more fairly uphold a strict system where every individual has an absolutely equal say regardless of the social/economic system prevalent in which they live?

If so, this raises questions about the difference in value between different socio-economic models. Do you believe that an area that is predominantly farmers, requiring less population density than an urban center that distrubutes their produce, deserves less political influence by default than that port city where people don't need land to produce their own food/produce?

...And what about areas that have large national parks set aside from development. Should they be even more disadvantaged -- wouldn't they then push to develop the vast wilderness areas to allow more people to move in, hoping to mitigate their diminishing say compared to other areas that are heavily developed?

(apologies for all the questions, but I'm curious where you stand on the matter)

 

[StillBallin75]

I'll ask then... Where would you draw a line as far as democracy is concerned for America? Are you for a straight up direct system -- One man, one vote -- without any other check in the national legislature? A Unicameral legislature with only seats directly apportioned to better and more fairly uphold a strict system where every individual has an absolutely equal say regardless of the social/economic system prevalent in which they live?

I'm actually in favor of a system of proportional representation a la some European countries. I don't necessarily see the existence of the Senate as a "check" on the powers of the legislature.

If so, this raises questions about the difference in value between different socio-economic models. Do you believe that an area that is predominantly farmers, requiring less population density than an urban center that distrubutes their produce, deserves less political influence by default than that port city where people don't need land to produce their own food/produce? ...And what about areas that have large national parks set aside from development. Should they be even more disadvantaged -- wouldn't they then push to develop the vast wilderness areas to allow more people to move in?

I'm not sure if I buy the argument that farmers are automatically politically disadvantaged in a one-man, one-vote kind of system. Ideally, power should be proportional to population. In a unicameral, proportionally representative legislature, would each representative have equal power to bring federal resources to bear on his district?

How true, in reality, is the assertion that the national politics of small states would be dominated by that of large states if the interests of the large states aren't even particularly unified in Congress? That's the idea I'm trying to get at.

 

[other]

I'm actually in favor of a system of proportional representation a la some European countries. I don't necessarily see the existence of the Senate as a "check" on the powers of the legislature.

I never said the senate is a check on the legislature, it's a check on the house of representatives. In other words, it is a less-democratic side of the legislature that keeps the overall legislature from being too democratic overall.

I'm not sure if I buy the argument that farmers are automatically politically disadvantaged in a one-man, one-vote kind of system. Ideally, power should be proportional to population. In a unicameral, proportionally representative legislature, would each representative have equal power to bring federal resources to bear on his district?

Each individual, yes, but you're overlooking the fact that minority groups of people (ie. there are less fishermen in Alaska than dockworkers on the east coast) would then be hurt, because they would never be able to contend politically with larger, more populous factions, regardless of how valuable they are to the country. People don't always vote as individuals, they tend to vote in blocs based on participation in, or identification with, larger groups of individuals with things in common.

How true, in reality, is the assertion that the national politics of small states would be dominated by that of large states if the interests of the large states aren't even particularly unified in Congress? That's the idea I'm trying to get at.

Well, people from the same regions/cities tend to have more in common than people from disparate parts when in comes to regional issues or funding. In other words, most people recognize that what's good for one place isn't necessarily good for another, and vice versa. It is a trend throughout history for densely populated regions to conquer and control areas of less population. Control can come by any political means, ie. not only war, but a vote as well.

Simply put, in a more direct democracy the areas with more people will naturally dominate areas without as many people, for the simple fact that they have more people, regardless of the area's overall economic or cultural value.

Think of Athens and the Delian league. It started as a league of equal groups (city-states), but Athens very quickly came to control the league and demand tribute from the others, even though Athenian politics was notoriously fractious, simply because they had more people and a bigger navy.

Also, look at the city of Paris vs. the Departments during and following the French Revolution, where things were made more democratic (drastically and very quickly), Paris dominated the other areas of the country to the point that they began to rebel.