“You say you'll
change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head”
Well, you know
We all want to change your head”
Lennon/McCartney
“I'll tip my hat to
the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around”
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around”
Townshend
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
wants to amend the Constitution. Among the tweaks to “the law of the land” that
the elderly jurist wishes to make are major changes to the First and Second
amendments. In his latest book Six
Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Justice
Stevens argues for the following amendments to the Constitution. He wants the
First Amendment to remove protection against “reasonable” campaign spending
limits at both the federal and state levels. He wants the Second Amendment to
be rewritten to state that only members of the state militia have the right to
bear arms. He wants an amendment to prohibit political gerrymandering to create
“safe” Congressional seats. He wants to eliminate the anti-commandeering
rule by which the federal government may not force the states to carry out
federal government activities. He wants to eliminate sovereign immunity for
violations of constitutional rights. He wants to amend the Eighth Amendment to
state that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment.”
In general, Justice Stevens’
suggestions would lead to fewer rather than greater rights. Americans would
have their natural rights greatly diminished by his suggested changes to the
First and Second Amendments. Campaign finance contribution
limits are unnecessary and violate the natural right to free speech. The
natural right to bear arms is a necessary
safeguard against tyranny which cannot be infringed without inviting
inevitable totalitarianism. States would come dangerously close to becoming
slaves of the federal government if the anti-commandeering rule were
eliminated. Eliminating sovereign immunity is a good idea, but it ought to be
unnecessary since that concept is not enumerated within the Constitution.
Limiting the use of political gerrymandering would be a good idea, but
certainly not at the cost of the other rights that Justice Stevens wishes to
eliminate. Furthermore, a Constitution-sized government is one in which
political parties would have less reason to gerrymander, and the gerrymandering
they did do would have less of a practical effect. Stevens is also likely
correct about wishing for Eighth Amendment clarification. The government should
not have more rights than the people. If a citizen can only kill in the defense
of self or others from imminent harm, then the same is true of the government.
Therefore, capital punishment should be eliminated.
Many individuals all over the
political spectrum have suggested that the United
States ought to have a new Constitutional
Convention. The question is whether this would be an improvement. Would this be
likely to lead to more rights being protected or fewer? Activists of all
stripes would bitterly contest one another in the crafting of a new
constitution. Would civil libertarians be able to win the day or would
statists? Any compromise concerning natural rights is unacceptable. If civil
libertarians wish Americans to be completely free while statists wish Americans
to be complete slaves of the state, how would a compromise in which Americans
wind up being merely half enslaved by the state be a positive outcome? The
major political machines of both party have become hopelessly statist. On the
Democratic Party side, the Blue Dogs and fiscal conservatives—of which the
unfairly economically maligned Presidents Carter and Clinton were good
exemplars—are gone. Neo-progressives rule the party roost. These Wilsonians are
the architects of the Nanny state, fascistic wars of aggression, the Social
Security Ponzi scheme, and Obamacare. These are the individuals who champion
FDR’s collectivist “Second
Bill of Rights.” On the Republican side, true conservatives have long been
dominated by progressive RINOs and Trotskyite warmongering neoconservatives who
care not about deficits or sane fiscal policy as long as the
military-industrial complex, oil companies, and U.S.-friendly Middle
East governments benefit. Is there any doubt that if these two
nasty political machines began compromising, the only true losers would be the
American people?
Even if the Constitution were
changed to fit the will of the people, it is not clear that natural rights
would not be lost. A poll taken in 2000 found
that only about half of the American public would vote for the United States
Constitution. A 2013
poll found that 34% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too
far in guaranteeing freedom. According to Gallup, nearly half of all
Americans believe that gun control laws should be more strict than they are
now.
A new Constitution would
inevitably wind up being a legal version of New Coke. What is the point of that
when the United States Constitution is Classic Coke? The problem with the
Constitution is that it is being obeyed less and less by the government. Time
and again, when there is a problem, it is not due to a deficiency in the
document but a deficiency in the government’s willingness to be bound by the
document. What is the point of either a New Constitution or the current
Constitution if the government refuses to obey it?
The true answer is for the
American people to hold their elected leaders accountable. The voters must hold
their elected representatives’ feet to the fire. Primary them and vote them out
if they do not obey the Constitution. Deny support to candidates and political
parties which are not true to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The
problem is with our elected officials and with us for putting up with them.
There is no significant problem with the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment