Two hundred and twenty four years ago, people of radically different views put aside those differences long enough to save this Nation. America was on the brink of collapse. Its first constitution was an unmitigated disaster. Only a radical, and some say illegal, reform could restore the promise of the nation declared a generation before when it claimed its independence from Britain.
We forget this fact about them today. To us, they all look very much alike -- white guys, some in wigs, eloquent and brave no doubt, but certainly not the picture of significant difference in either ideas or values. Yet when the men who founded this nation met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, there were fundamental differences among them. Slavery, for example: The men who founded this nation were critically divided on this fundamental question. Some thought it natural and appropriate. Some thought it the quintessential injustice. Yet they were able to put even this difference aside enough to craft a pact that would give birth to our constitution (and eventually, death to slavery).
On September 24 & 25, I will co-host a conference at Harvard with Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler, on whether it is time for a new constitutional convention. Our conference is obviously not that convention. We don't pretend to parallel that event two and a quarter centuries ago, and certainly not any of its characters.
But as many of us believe that our nation has come to another moment of crisis in its capacity to govern, some of us believe we must begin to talk through whether fundamental reform through a convention will be required.
Meckler and I want to have that conversation the way our Framers did -- as a respectful discussion among people who disagree fundamentally. I have enormous respect for Meckler, and the movement that he helped to birth. But I am not an ally of the Tea Party. I share the belief that our nation needs fundamental reform. I don't share a belief in the substance of the reform that the Tea Party has pushed.
Yet the differences between Meckler and me, or between the Tea Party and the Left more generally, are tiny as compared to the differences among many of our Founders. However much we disagree, our disagreement is puny as compared to the fight over slavery, or the decision about whether to found this nation as a monarchy or a republic. Meckler and I believe that if THEY could put aside their differences long enough to debate with respect the changes their constitution might need, then WE should be able to put aside our much smaller differences to focus on a way to end our own crisis of governance.
The convention that we will discuss is not, however, the same sort of convention that gave birth to the Constitution. It is instead a convention explicitly envisioned by that constitution. Article V of the Constitution gives the states the power to demand that Congress "call a Convention for proposing amendments" to the Constitution. Such amendments are only valid when ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Never in the history of the Nation has an Article V convention been called -- though we came close a century ago, when the call for a convention to make the senate elected was within one vote of the necessary two thirds. That was enough to spur Congress to reform itself, by proposing its own amendment and ending the need for a convention.
We will start this conversation with all of us not yet convinced that a convention is either necessary or wise. It is my view that is is. Meckler doesn't (yet) share that view. And over the course of the two day event, lawyers, historians, political scientists, and activists from both the Left and the Right will discuss whether and how a convention might proceed.
I am open to being convinced that a convention is unwise (though I would then despair about how we will effect the fundamental reform our government needs). But I am convinced already that much of the debate about a convention is, let's say, under-informed. We should at least be able to have a conversation that remedies this, even if we can't agree about whether a convention would be wise.
If you'd like to attend, check out http://conconcon.org. If you can help to cover the costs of this project, you can donate here.
But please save the rage that these efforts at across-the-isle exchange inevitably inspire. I can distinguish between talking to someone, and agreeing with them. We all should recognize that the very reason our Republic embraced a representative democracy was because it was clear to our Framers that there would always be people to disagree with. What we've lost is not a world in which everyone agrees. What we've lost is a practice of respectful deliberation about those disagreements. If it does nothing else, this Conference on the Constitutional Convention will demonstrate that practice.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
The current filibuster rules in the U.S. Senate are inconsistent with principles of majority rule and lend themselves to abuse, but they are rules that the Senate itself has adopted to give its own members more power, they are not required by or derived from the Constitution. We don't need a constitutional convention to address that problem. We just need to vote out the incumbent parasites who perceive themselves as demigods.
Majority rule is a bad idea anyway. There's no reason why 51% of the population should get to boss around the other 49%.
The filibuster as it currently exists is a bad idea too, though. It doesn't lead to deliberation and compromise. It leads to a choice between gridlock and quid-pro-quo deal-making between relatively few narrow interests. It should go back to something closer to what it was before the changes made in the 1970s.
Unfortunately, we can't get it changed just by voting out incumbents and putting in new senators who will then face exactly the same incentives about how to maximize their own power.
1) It were held in secret.
2) No lobbyists were allowed to come within a thousand miles of it
3) No phones or Internet
4) No news reporters
Each state should pick a couple of smart people, perhaps by a vote of the people, to attend. You put up time limits. Whatever they come up with, the states then vote yeah or nay. If I had one wish for an amendment, it would be that entities are NOT people. People are people, and constitution protects people. Congress can make up any law it likes restricting entities, like corporations. That amendment alone could help bring this country back from the abyss.
By this standard, the idea of Congress as a deliberative body is a failure. It's a deal-making institution rather than a deliberative one, and the deal-making is done as much among lobbyists as among members of Congress. Then most of the decisions on actual rules get punted over to the executive branch. Congress doesn't have the institutional wherewithal to make the rules.
There are two possible solutions: set things up so that Congress will fulfill its supposed function, or take most of that function away from Congress and legitimize the other institutions that currently perform it.
Section 1
The number of Representatives apportioned to each state shall not be less than one for every sixty thousand inhabitants.
Section 2
The House of Representatives may designate a number of its officers, not to exceed one hundred, to be elected by the people of the United States in such manner as Congress shall direct.
Section 3
Congress shall make no law granting the power to make any rule with the force of law, to any entity except a committee of the House of Representatives, or to the legislatures of the several States. But any such grant to the legislatures shall be made uniformly to all the States.
Section 4
Any committee of the House of Representatives, empowered to make rules with the force of law, shall be subject for the budget of its staff and the Rules of its Proceedings to law passed by both Houses. But the House alone may determine the Rules that shall apply to any such committee in its consideration of any Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the both Houses may be necessary.
--
In other words, the entire rule-making bureaucracy gets shifted into the legislative branch. Instead of regulations being written by bureaucrats whose bosses' bosses are political appointees chosen by the president, the regulations would be written by bureaucrats whose bosses' bosses are elected to Congress. Congress would have enough members to provide all the necessary political personnel.
yeah, umm, amendment convention maybe.
We live in a technological wonder world where everyone can access only that information with which they agree 24/7. With every new app or device the ability to select what you want to see and hear becomes more precise. There is no more empathy or sympathy for ideological diversity. This is not going to be corrected by a Constitutional Convention either.
Right now we pretty much have a choice of "Either/Or" because the US is monolothically a two-party nation. We need a moderate, centerist third party the main function of which is to break the gridlock and grease the wheels of government.
Depending on the poll you read, between 28% and 39% of likely voters describe themselves as moderate or centerist. Both the Republican and Democratic parties poll a similar percentage. If we can't form a viable third party now, I can't imagine when we could.
Just as spending--if kept on its current trajectory--will bankrupt our nation, political polarization--if it increases at the same rate as at present--will do what the Civil War failed to and permanently divide it. Instead of a United States we will become an American Commonwealth.