According to Political Science Professor Larry Sabato, our Constitution is a little out of date.
There have only been 17 amendments (the first 10 must be considered a part of the original document), one of which simply reversed another, others of which have been quite minor. Despite the new realities of the modern United States, our government runs under the direction of a document written with quill pens. This is not what our founders envisioned. Thomas Jefferson insisted that, “No society can make a perpetual Constitution…The earth belongs always to the living generation.” He wanted major Constitutional reform every generation. One of Jefferson’s great contemporaries, James Madison, agreed on the matter, saying that constitutional revisions would be “a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.” Daily Kos
I have always thought these basic facts demonstrate how successful our Founding Fathers were in constructing a government based on principles of liberty. Nonetheless, Mr. Sabato wishes to invoke Article V of the Constitution to call for a National Constitutional Convention to be held October 19, 2007 in the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C.
The goal of the National Constitutional Convention is not to promote one possible reform over another, but rather to spur a grand, national discussion on the Constitution of the United States and whether the cornerstone of our republic could or should be a means of revitalizing civic and political engagement in America, curtailing apathy and renewing confidence in American politics and government. A More Perfect Constitution
And, of course, to promote his new book, A More Perfect Constitution. Maybe if it is burned on a DVR it will have more authority in today’s world?
Mr. Sabato’s suggestions are designed to retain the basic principles of individual liberty, federalism and the separation of powers. I fear if we really opened something like this up, however, what we would end up with would look more like the Bill of Rights for the 21st Century we discussed back in April: a complete redefinition of rights.
But what we really need to do in order to ensure the liberty Jefferson sought to protect in his letter to Madison quoted above does not involve major revisions to the Constitution itself. Instead, what we need to do is return to a time when our representatives asked whether or not they had the Constitutional power to do what they proposed to do rather than how to secure and broaden their powers.
In other words, we need to stop viewing the Constitution as a living document, amenable to our whims. Because, as Jefferson stated in a letter in 1803,
Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
We have essentially made our Constitution a blank paper by construction. No Constitutional Convention can change that. We either respect it for the bounds it has set on government, or we discard it.
Incidentally, Larry Sabato is also the author of an American government text book used in high school, American Government, Continuity and Change.
So how would you change the Constitution?
government, Sabato, Constitution, A More Perfect Constitution
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
A commenter on Glenn Beck just yesterday, an teacher of high school civics and history. made the point that when she has her students read the Constitution, they are very surprised to learn what the actual rights, powers, and limitations set on government are — a very different picture is painted by the media. No separation of church and state? No right to privacy? Then they wanted to know why no one had ever told them this before.
That said, *I* was very surprised living overseas to learn that many countries (and some of them are very volatile, unstable ones)draw up a new constitution every time they elect a new president (or have a coup!). Having grown up under a 200 year old constitution, it would make me feel quite insecure as a citizen to have the constitution completely redone every four years or so! They see it quite differently and wonder how we get along under our antiquated Constitution…but they’re still investing in dollars to keep their savings from crashing along with the national currency.
I hate to think of the kinds of changes that would be made to the Constitution in our time…probably ones that reflect our *perceived* rights, like those the high school students thought we had. But as you point out, Dana, we should try respecting our current constitution and conforming our laws and practice to it, before we make any pronouncements about how it’s not working. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I would spell out property rights more specifically. Something like, “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Wait. That’s already in there. How about, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” No wait. That’s already in there, too.
Okay, well, I would try to find some way to make it clear that a person’s property and the fruit of their labor is theirs and not to be taken by the government for someone else whom the government deems more worthy. Or whatever. (I hope I used whom correctly there.)
I know, I sound like one of those rotten conservatives that doesn’t care about the poor.
Oh, and I would put something in there about children being the property of the parents until they are 18. Just kidding. I would put something in there about parents rights, though. I just can’t think of a good way to word that right now. (Head cold.)
I think all the proposals I could think of would basically be to follow the one we already have. Even with parental rights. Where in the Constitution can you derive the notion that the state is in anyway the protector of the children? What power is given it to intervene?
I enjoyed the letter Jefferson wrote to Madison about the earth belonging to the living. It is largely talking about debt and how we should not enter into any debt which will be passed to our children. Nineteen years is the maximum he puts on the debts we can enter into.
And now it looks like our nation’s greatest weakness is the debt that our parents put on our children. That is a pretty drastic shift in philosophy.
The thought of any current or future leaders tinkering with such a precious document scares the living hell out of me–sorry if that is offensive, but it truly does.
Our current leaders, politicians, academics, etc simply do not have the same integrity nor dedication that our founding fathers did; they simply cannot put aside the self in order to accomplish such a feat. Besides, the document itself is pretty darn good as it stands!
As to the question: hmmmmmm, I will have to think on that for awhile.
I don’t think I would chuck the whole thing out and start over, but the one thing I would add would be a STRONG limit to Congress’s legislative powers. Meaning if the power isn’t specifically granted to congress then it belongs to the states…Drat, I think that’s already in there.
How about we just require all Senators and Representatives to take a refresher course on the constitution?
I can’t imagine what I would change in the Constitution. It is the culmination of the political discussions and practice in the states.
These discussions about liberty need to be revisited in our time. Not as a means to add to the government, but to restrain it. We look to the federal government to solve all of our problems. We need the character to solve some of our own.
Dana,
I don’t know if I want to open the door to changing the Constitution. It’s all in who is asking. Since Sabato was quoted in Kos, I cannot see anything good coming out of his recommendation. I see “freedom of religion” changing to “freedom from religion”. I see rights being qualified for protected classes. I see income redistribution becoming federal mandate. Not like those things aren’t happing now, but they don’t need to be legitimized in our country’s charter.
I have always wondered why, when discussing the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson is brought up. I am sure he was an OK guy (for a deist) and technically a “Founding” father… but Jefferson contributed NOTHING to the Constitution, and he wasn’t even in America when they were writing it and ratifying it! So, although Jefferson’s opinions are nice to have, they should not be the determining factors concerning its intent.
I would think that Hamilton and Madison have much, much more to add to the intent and body of understanding the Constitution.
P.S. Dana it seems that you have a spam comment here.
This is certainly an interesting question. However I must agree with Rick that changing the Constitution is not the way to go. I don’t believe that we the people have any right to change it, unless some part of it contradicted the supreme law of God, and I am not aware of any place in the Constitution that does. And besides, it is dangerous to throw around the idea of having the Constitution changed, when it is under such fire now and when our generation could not POSSIBLY do any better in framing one.
The problems with government and society today are not to be traced to the Constitution, even though the Founders said it was not capable of preserving this nation for eternity.
IF I HAD to decide what I’d change in the Constitution (although nobody alive today has that authority), I’d add this:
After due process, if anyone is found guilty of treason (that is, he makes the Constitution of no effect, sacrifices the sovereignty of this Constitution for the laws of another nation or of nations), he is to be incarcerated for life –no bail or private communication with those in state or federal office –, or publicly hanged.
Wow, that is some spam. Anyway, i have been pondering this all day but was too busy to comment. I really think that the constitution has everything in there that it needs to and that our real problem is that the intent is being ignored. Frankly, if it isn’t in there then the federal government shouldn’t be messing with it.
most of our troubles today come from the constitution being twisted around into what it is not, and from people not understanding what the constitution says. Think about it, if every federal law and activity was checked to see if it was constitutional and everything that didn’t hold up was chucked, and if all parts of the federal government held to the intent of the consitution (including judges who now think their job is to change the law instead of upholding it) we would be in a much better position as a country.
If I could go back in time I’d make them explicitely state in the Constitution that the United States is a Christian nation. Too late for that, though.
Wow. Thank you everyone for your very thoughtful comments.
It sounds like most of us think that the real problem with the Constitution is that we really don’t follow it? At least most of your proposals are actually already in there in one way or another!
Renae, that is exactly the heart of it. Without character in our nation, we will not choose leaders with character. And then it doesn’t matter what constrains their power…they will disregard it.
Oh, Cato. We all love Jefferson. He was the most libertarian of them. But he did say a lot of good stuff. Even in this letter they quote to talk about how we should reconvene on the Constitution every generation. That is why we have the power to amend the document and call a convention. But he was also for strict construction and not re-interpreting the words that stand on the page.
Casey, I definitely understand where you are coming from with that, but do you think it would actually change anything?
Oh…and it was also Jefferson who noted that the weakness in our system would prove to be the judiciary.
An independent judiciary is vital for a true republic, but it has also been the source of some Constitutional changes outside the process set up by the Constitution.
For those who love and want to restore American democracy through constitutional amendments, please go to http://www.foavc.org and examine our materials; we have a constitutional right to the nation’s first Article V convention but Congress and other power elites don’t want us to have it; join our effort!!!
…I’d have an amendment that term limited congress and the judiciary, like the Presidency. These career politicians and judges are unnecessary and often times dangerous.
That is one of Sabato’s suggested reforms, as well. I don’t think that was much of an issue way back when. Being a career politician was not what our government was set up for, and the economy sort of necessitated getting home to the farm now and again!
How are you feeling? And how is the nausea?
Hi Dana,
If the words were found in the Constitution liberals would find another way to argue against the free exercise of Christianity, but at least they couldn’t twist the words of the founding fathers as they do now.
True.
What I do not understand is when they say things like “this is not what the founders intended” when there was so much more expression of religion at the time than there is now.
If that isn’t what the founders intended, then why was the bible used as a textbook in public schools? Why did Jefferson pay public monies to evangelize the Native Americans? Why did we purchase bibles with public money during the Revolutionary War to make sure they were available to all? Why did they open with prayer? Why did they lead national prayers? Why did they almost unanimously state that it was the purpose of government to promote liberty. It was the duty of the church to promote virtue…and without virtue, our form of government could not prosper?
Did they not understand what they were doing with this secular state?
Exactly.
Thoughts on the judiciary:
I agree with you, Dana, and with Mr. Jefferson, that the judiary needs to be watched carefully. One of the main reasons for that is the fact that the judges do not have to be re-elected, and can spend some time in the court. There are some advantages and disadvantages to that.
However, Alexander Hamilton pointed out in the Federalist Papers that the only time that the judiciary would pose a real threat to the Constitution was when the executive and/or the legislative refused to suppress any bad judges that would come up in the Court. After seeing the violent ways that the liberal-controlled Senate has been chewing ans spitting judge appointees, I think that Hamilton’s estimation of the problem is accurate in its most profound sense.
That is very true. We do have means to correct the problem within our constitution, but as with everything these days, we seem to prefer to just let it go on rather than actually do what is needed.
I think that removing the independent element of the judiciary would be dangerous in the long run. The Founding Fathers deliberately made the judiciary an independent branch, but I don’t think they gave it the power of judicial review — at least in the Constitution they didn’t.
The British Star Chamber Court was NOT independent, and the Founding Fathers witnessed the atrocities that came out of that Court. The Founders used this Court as one of the reasons the judiciary was “independent.” Of course that doesn’t mean that the Senate & President are without power to check the US Supreme Court. Judges can be impeached for treason, and treason in the case of judges would include refusing to submit to the Constitution and its original intent as THE authority for interpretation of the law.
The problem with the Courts is the failure of the legislative and the executive to check it, as Hamilton said it would be.
That’s just my opinion based upon my observation.
Correct on both counts. If I remember correctly, they essentially gave themselves the power of Judicial Review, but there was not much anyone could do about it.
The judiciary should remain independent, and proposals such as Gingrich’s to just do away with the ninth circuit are not very feasible if you want to maintain a just system that does not sway in political winds.
According to the Constitution, however, the justices do not serve for life, but rather “during good behavior.” We are reluctant to remove judges, which is a good thing.
But the standards for nominating judges is the real problem. They are chosen based on their rulings on a number of “hot-button” issues, rather than for their adherence to the Constitution.
More and more, it seems to me the Constitution is nothing more than a formality for most of our officials, regardless of the branch they serve.
Right on nail-head, Dana! Our public officials are not following the intent of the Constitution as their code of conduct. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that pummeling the Senators with petitions for them to get it right is going to help. One cannot change his view of the Constitution overnight. We need some more constitutionalists from the start.
Democracy 2.0 Declaration – Mobilize.org
On Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 50 youth leaders worked together at the Democracy 2.0 Summit in Washington D.C. The Summit, a national movement instituted by Mobilize.org, is a way to bring attention to the ideas that America’s youth has to offer. Democracy 2.0 is designed to address the civic participation needs and interests of the Millennial Generation (targeting the 16-30 age group).
Mobilize.org has worked for the past year to survey young people about what they feel is an issue in both their own community and on a national level. This consensus among the youth of America has been addressed during the Summit in order to produce the Democracy 2.0 Declaration. This declaration represents what the youth believes is working and is not working in the current democracy of the U.S.
The declaration serves as a foundation for political candidates to understand what the youth of America feels strongly about. The Declaration will be shared with 435 youth representatives at Mobilize.org’s Party for the Presidency, an event in Hollywood, CA that will take place December 29-31.
Democracy 2.0 was launched to upgrade and renew our political process in America by providing guidelines for positive social change that take advantage of both the tremendous passion of today’s youth leaders and the powerful social networking and technology tools they are using to create communities.
Mobilize.org is here to listen and help instigate change within the youth of America. You can get involved by going to http://www.mobilize.org for more information.
Last night I got to thinking about this post again, and I was pondering one of the boys in my cub scout den, who, when we made our “code of conduct” for meetings, kept coming back to “no guns”. He was really stuck on that one. Maybe its really pounded in at school? I do know this child is from a hunting family (this is western Kansas after all!)…and I’m sure he watches plenty of television. But it just got me to thinking about the Constitution and the right to bear arms. Anymore we usually think of firearms, but I’m sure it means swords, knives, or what have you. Anyhow, with all the school shooting incidents recently, schools really seem to be vocal about “no guns” rules — and yet, why have a no guns rule when it is already clearly illegal for underage, unlicensed children to carry guns anyhow, making it an issue for the police rather than the school administration. There was a stink recently in OR about a high school teacher who wished to carry a gun to work with her. And yet, is it constitutional for government schools to have a no guns rule? I’m not arguing that guns or weapons belong in schools, but I wonder if the Constitution were to be revamped, how much debate would the “right to bear arms” generate?
A lot I suspect. There actually are a number of districts which allow teachers to carry firearms. And judges have always been able to.
At any rate, people are currently arguing that the “right to bear arms” affects only state militias. They are looking at that phrase, “in order to maintain a well-armed militia” as restrictive rather than as just one reason. I doubt it will be long before that is reinterpreted even under our current Constitution.
We seem wonderfully adept at finding just about anything in there we want to use to increase the power of the state and decrease the liberty of the individual.
Late to the conversation, but I would like to see a Constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death. I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled by the “culture of death” found in modern America.
That is another one of those that you would think we wouldn’t need an amendment to protect…