The Tea Party Patriots came to Harvard and it was, well.... a little bit boring.
We've been taught to believe not only that Americans can't achieve consensus around key issues, but that we can't even tolerate each other enough to carry on a meaningful debate. Yet last weekend nearly 400 of us gathered at Harvard and did just that.
The Conference on the Constitutional Convention was sponsored by Harvard Law School, Rootstrikers (which works to reduce the role of special interest money in elections) and the Tea Party Patriots.
We came together around a simple point of agreement: From the Right and the Left, citizens increasingly believe that our Republic does not work. Reform of any kind is stalled by a status quo that profits from blocking change. No side in the political debate benefits from this inertia.
The question before us was whether the appropriate response is to push for an Article V Constitutional Convention: According to Article V of the Constitution, if two-thirds of the state legislatures pass resolutions calling for a convention, then Congress must convene one. All sides would then have the opportunity to argue for the changes they believe will restore our Republic. Any amendment that gets proposed by the Convention must then be ratified by three fourths of the states to become law. Three-fourths means 38 states. So 13 states have the power to veto any change, guaranteeing that no extremism from either side could ever have an effect.
Attendees included unionists and anti-war activists, states' rights-ers and balanced budget advocates, electoral reformers and people who want to amend the amendment process. There was neither shoving nor shouting, no bullying or bloviating: We got along, we had a productive conversation, and we built a foundation of understanding that we can add to later.
Granted, our discussion wasn't contorted by the incentives that warp conversations in Washington, or on cable TV. Attendees weren't sifted through that same array of filters that makes it next to impossible for an ordinary American to win a seat in Congress. Nor was the conversation steered by cable TV producers constantly aware that only sizzle earns ad revenue. We were free to listen and speak, without worrying about whether being boring would cost us money. And what we found was that being boring bought us understanding. As Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots put it, there is a business model that profits from "teaching us to hate each other." Everyone there was working against that model.
And that, ultimately, was the point of the conference: Most Americans can surely agree that Congress, as much as possible, should be unconstrained by incentives that compel it to behave differently than would a representative sample of Americans, coming together to try to do what's best for our country.
But instead we have a Congress that's so thoroughly captured by narrow interests, subject to so many perverse incentives, that it's overwhelmingly disdained by the people whom it's supposed to represent -- with recent polls showing only 12% confidence ratings. Whether you want smaller government or more effective government, this system is not working. And it is foolish to expect Congress on its own to institute the necessary changes -- as it is, by identity, composed entirely of people who've found success playing under the current rules.
Madison reports that at the first Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia's George Mason argued that if the proposing of amendments were to depend "on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case."
Not everybody at our conference agreed that a Convention was the right remedy, at least not yet. But most -- even those from some pretty austere and established institutions, including the Goldwater Institute -- were open to exploring the idea further.
If you're interested in learning more, check out CallAConvention.org.
But if you're just interested in bloviating, tune to your favorite cable TV news show. Or C-Span's coverage of the floors of Congress.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
Right now our government has been overtaken by corporations, the wealthy and they are operating from strange ideologies and unchecked greed. We have to reclaim our country for the current corporate rules. I am not saying all corporations are bad. I am saying they should not run our government.
After all the rule is NOT One Dollar One Vote. it is One Person, One Vote.
The real concern, of course, is that the last time our country had one it was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. They started by throwing it out. That's the precedent.
Raise your hand if you want your political opponents to have the upper hand in writing a new Constitution from scratch.
Go ahead, Tovarischii, call a constitutional convention. Make our day.
That's Alaska, one vote, California one vote, and so on. How about it, Comrades? Do you feel LUCKY?
What? You want a convention outside of the procedures set forth in the existing Constitution, the Constitution our armed forces are sworn to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Go for it. It'll be a short civil war, for oaths shall be kept.
". . .when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; "
Legislature or state convention, no Peoples' Soviet.
2/3 of the states call for the convention, it is the convention which proposes amendends which then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states,. still on the basis of one state, one vote, for the voting is by states. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html
Where in the would do people get the idea that the amendments are proposed before the convention is convened? That's baclwards It is the convention which proposes the amendments, not the other way around. You might want the convention to propose an amendment on corporate political speech but you might get an amendment authorizing the death penalty fpr unnatural sexual practices.
1. An inclusion of precise definitions of words so that lawyers can't escape the meaning of the Constitution.
2. A new 10th Amendment that also specifically says that the "Power to Tax" clause is ONLY the power to tax, for the people too uneducated to get that.
3. Replace elected representatives with Reps picked at random from voters who say they would serve as a Rep when they register to vote.
4. Senators go back to be sent by the states to represent the states. States have no representation, yet they are the ones that created the United States! What's the use of a redundant bicameral Congress? We've lost one of the checks and balances of the system.
5. Senators shall serve only one term.
6. Representatives shall serve only one term.
7. The President shall have one term of 6 years.
8. The Congress shall have the power to create the Air Force, Coast Guard and NASA.
9. A Constituitonal Court shall be created, manned by 5 Justices, elected by the states, that shall have the specific duty of reviewing all Federal laws and certifying them by 5-0 vote as Constitutional prior to them being signed by the President.
10. The President shall be sent to office for a 6-year maximum term, elected by the 50 Governors of the States, and may be replaced at any time by a 60% vote of no confidence.
A representative sample has almost no relevant expertise. Legislating well requires a whole lot of expertise.
"instead we have a Congress that's so thoroughly captured by narrow interests, subject to so many perverse incentives, that it's overwhelmingly disdained by the people whom it's supposed to represent"
Is there any evidence that the negative poll ratings for Congress have anything to do with the actual behavior of Congress? What percentage of poll respondents actually evaluate a representative sample of all the bills coming out of Congress?
Were enough people to run for Congress on the following "plank" of Constitutional Amendments they might get Congressional action on such amendments:
Amendment XXVIII: Only human beings are persons. No corporation, organization, or any other entity may be regarded as a person or having any rights of a citizen.
Amendment XXIX: All elections shall be publicly financed; any candidate for office accepting emoluments of any kind from any other source that public funds shall be, upon conviction, forever disbarred from serving in any public office after serving a term of 15 years in prison.
Amendment XXX: No petitioner of the government, its officers or elected representatives shall provide any emoluments or anything of monetary value to said officers or representatives, directly or indirectly, nor shall any said officer or elected representative be in the employ of any petitioner until a period of fifteen years after cessation of government service.
Amendment XXXI: Neither the Senate nor House of Representatives may enact any rule of its governance that will prevent a majority from voting on any issue brought before it for more than thirty days.
Amendment XXXII: The Senate must vote on confirmation of Presidential appointees no later than sixty days of the submission of the appointment to the Senate.
I'm sure they can be cast into better legalese, but the ideas are there.
Also remind yourself about the values that make up our unique country as expressed in The Pledge of Allegiance. We seem to have forgot it's history and the values brought forth by its author. http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
As imperfect as we are, we are a progressive country working through issues that continue to plague other societies.
How about holding those currently in office accountable for criminal acts? A Congressman accepts a donation from an industry and then votes for legislation in favor of that industry could be charged with accepting bribes. A federal department official that alters the department budget to appropriate more funds (as the DOD may have done) should be charged with embezzlement. And any government official acting against the laws expressly stated in the Constitution which they swore upon entering office to uphold should be immediately dismissed and tried for treason.
I'm aware I may sound a bit extreme, but I'm mad as all get out at the way our government blatantly breaks our laws and then thumbs their collective nose at us.
The one and only topic for this convention should be a constitutional amendment mandating publicly funded elections for all federal offices.
Anything and everything else would be window dressing.