Thoughts on The Genius of America

Eric Lane and Michael Oreskes are absolutely correct when they argue in The Genius of America that our Constitution is of brilliant design and foresight. Like most readers, I enjoyed the discussion of the Founders' intent and the philosophical underpinnings of what at the time was a dynamically new system. But in the celebration of this bequest, it is vitally important to remember two things.

First, as Lane and Oreskes insist, we have a long way to go before the contemporary nation is truly worthy of the legacy of the Constitution. The facts about civic knowledge--or lack of it--truly are shocking. Only a bare majority of Americans can name even one basic purpose of the Constitution, many asserting that it was written to declare independence from Great Britain or to create the original thirteen states. Just four out of ten know that the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments.

A survey of teenagers conducted by the National Constitution Center found that while 71 percent could name the first three letters of any Web address (www), just 35 percent knew the first three stirring words of the Constitution, We the People. A Zogby International poll revealed that the "Three Stooges" can be named by 78 percent of Americans, while just 42 percent knew the names of the three constitutional branches of government.

I am in full agreement with Lane and Oreskes that we must redouble our efforts in the mass media and in the educational system to inform young and old about the superstructure of the Constitution. What we do not know can hurt us.

Second, I see The Genius of America as phase one, with my own A More Perfect Constitution being phase two. In A More Perfect Constitution, I suggest 23 specific reforms in order to begin a discussion about how the Constitution can be improved and updated for the 21st Century. The Founders understood that their handiwork was a product of the conditions of their time, and while we have reformed bits and pieces of the Constitution over the years, much remains to be done. It is possible that the necessary changes can be accomplished through regular constitutional amendments, although I am not optimistic on this score. Congress has been a burial ground for virtually every good reform proposed in modern times. I prefer the alternate method provided by Article V, a Constitutional Convention, and I make the argument for a Convention to be held after careful preparation of many years in my own book.

I know that Lane and Oreskes are sympathetic to the idea and the need for reform, though they may not embrace a convention and some of the specific changes that I propose. Nonetheless, those of us in this vital field are unified in suggesting to the broader public that it is time to spend more of our energy thinking about and renewing the constitutional principles that have served us well over 220 years. It may also be true that it is past time to devote thought and energy to substantial reforms of some of the antiquated parts of the Constitution.

***

Larry J. Sabato is author of the book A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country (Walker and Co., 2007) and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Comments

[statusquobuster]

For all those with open minds about having the nation's first Article V convention, please check out the many materials on www.foavc.org and seriously consider becoming a member.

[MinuteMan]

Our system of government could certainly be improved but as with any complex system, changes often have unexpected consequences; so the guiding rule in constitutional fixes ought to be the same as for medicine: "First do no harm". In making any changes one also has to consider the fact that there will always be a faction that will try to "game" the changed system (i.e., take some aspect of the system and entirely subvert it to their own ends much as the Shrubbies are doing whenever the feel like it); this adds considerable complexity to our constitutional system.

For example, consider a small issue, the lifetime tenure of judges. The problem with this is that there is no way to correct any but the most egregious mistakes in appointment (via impeachment). If a political party decides to fill the judiciary with 25-year-old ideologues, we could be stuck with them for 50 to 75 years. That's a very long time even if the judges were good since it could tend to make the judiciary very static in its outlook.

On the other extreme we could have judges who are appointed for fairly short terms (though they could be reappointed). This would make the judicary too dynamic and their rulings would end up tracking the political winds. The high turnover would also tend to reduce the professionalism of the judiciary.

So what about something in between? The happy medium is hard to find. For instance if the term were 10 or 15 years the judge would have to go on to another career before retiring; then they might start issuing rulings with an eye to enhancing their next career (look at all the Shrubbies and GOP legislators jumping ship to feather their pockets as lobbyists, etc.).

Any wholesale changes to the constitution need to be very carefully thought through and debated. Any changes should only be attempted after years of analysis and debate.

[repearwo]

I second your concern that the current population of teh US needs knowledge to be able to adequately ammend the Constitution.

More than that we need experience. We have taken the resources of the world and tried to insulate ourselves from the realities of the world. A British Doctor once said that Americans are the only people in the world that view death as an option. If we do not understand what it is like to be deprived of liberty and suffer persecution we can not build a new structure that avoid those things. We have the Bill of Rights because the people of 1789 understood from personal experience how right of the few can be trampled upon.

We need to go slowly into that night of Constitutional Convention so that there might be morning again.

[horseface]

"The more law, the less justice." Cicero

The constitution is a simple document, a mysterious and alien fact to a society that generates laws to regulate every aspect of our lives. What can be done when we insist that a a straight jacket of legislation will create a free society? Only individuals who actively live by conscience can be free from group insanity.

It's not the dumbing down of the populace that brings down civilizations (although it doesn't help). It is the dumbing down of leadership that degrades government. Take a good look at the quality of leadership in the US, including the latest candidates. Case closed.

[unctiousprattle]

Larry most of your consitutional amendments are tinkering and in my opinion shouldn't be given the weight of constitional authority. Term limits try to overcome one of the worst aspects of participatory democracy, which is the lazy, uninformed or indifferent voter. The correct constituional amendment would be to require all citizens who have reached the age of majority to vote or face a fine.

[Sundialsvc4]

Larry, I have closely read your proposals. I agree with some of them, and I fear some of the others. Although I deeply respect your right to put forth this proposition, and your heart-felt reasons for it ... maybe you ARE right ... I feel that we should first insist upon the scrupulous enforcement of the "Supreme Law of the Land" that our existing Constitution already is.

I further believe that the Amendment system ought to be sufficient. I argue that a more conservative and guarded approach to the process of change might be more protective of the more than 320 million people who have a vital stake in whatever changes might be made. I am nervous about modifying such a critical system with all of the guard-plates removed.

Let's try this. Insist on it. Force it to happen. Force all of the clauses including the Impeachment Clause to mean everything they were meant to be. And then, only if necessary, proceed forward to your plan.

[mjjcpa]

Love your work. Watch you on Fox a lot. Please continue to bring objectivity and sobriety to an overly bitter and divided politic. I must however express deep reservations about modifying the constitution.

[mouselion]

'A Zogby International poll revealed that the "Three Stooges" can be named by 78 percent of Americans, while just 42 percent knew the names of the three constitutional branches of government.'

Even more alarming (and dangerous), there are those of different political persuasions who purportedly DO know the three branches of government, and who, time and time again, are willing to permanently upset the balance of power of these three branches, in order to short-sightedly solidify the power of their party.

Additionally, the way Americans look to governmental policy as the be-all, end-all answer to "fixing" global climate change, instead of seeing themselves as the source of the problem, is a telling example of how we have lost touch with our "We The People" spirit.

[stupidme]

Ah, another dreamer. My friend, wake up -- we couldn't "keep it."

[Tennessean]

Why do we need to "reform" the Constitution, Mr. Sabato? And, 23 reforms? That argument is specious. As a nation, we aren't familiar enough with the founding document for our entire Democratic Republic; ergo, we must "reform" it. No, in my view, we must learn it; and then we must observe what is contained in it.

Reforming our Constitution means changing what we are as a nation. And, that is the fundamental problem we are now dealing with; Bush has fundamentally changed this nation, because he rejects our Constitution completely.

Lastly, what we need in this nation isn't less partisanship at all. What we need in this nation is to rid it of the criminal, corrupt and incompetent Bush administration forever. The only thing that needs "reform" is the Republicon Party.

[technopolitical]

How many citizens know that the Constitution doesn't grant the President the power to appoint a single person to "his" administration without approval by Congress, either case by case, or by delegation of power?

How many people know that the Constitution does, however, explicitly grant the President the power to demand that officials provide their opinions on official business, and that they do so (yes!) in writing?

It would seem that the Framers of our Republic intended a somewhat less imperial presidency. Emperors, if I am not mistaken, can freely choose their subordinates and would need no explicit grant of the power to ask their opinions.

[guajiro]

A much needed idea. It is time we started taking responsibility for our nation instead of leaving everything up to the politicians. I haven't read the book yet, so I don't know the specifics on how each state will conduct the convention or if it will be done nationwide using the internet or even what will constitute a referendum. That it is legal and that the results must be honored by our political establishment, one only needs look to the constitution. Thanks.