Constitutional Reform and the Second Constitutional Convention

For how many years has there been talk in Congress of "Campaign-Finance Reform" legislation?  Does anyone out there reading this seriously believe that Congress is ever going to cut its own supply line?  Its umbilical cord?  Congress passing campaign finance reform is about as likely as the Mafia documenting all their earnings and expenses to the IRS.

We might say that the problem here is the essence of "Conflict of Interest"--in the strict legal sense as well as the general one.  We in the public have been naïve for too many years about our government's willingness to reform itself.  How many times have we elected candidates promising to "reform government," and how many times have they betrayed our trust by immediately jumping on the gravy train?

This conflict of interest is not a momentary corruption of a few individuals, it is a built-in institutional corruption, which has developed over the course of our democracy, and is the result of the heavy influence of Political Parties and Lobbyists in our governing.  It was perhaps not entirely anticipated by the framers of the constitution—who did not talk about political parties and lobbyists.  This fact alone warrants some kind of constitutional discussion.

This institutional corruption is one in which, in order to get elected to public office, a candidate has to sell his or her vote in advance, to the highest interested bidders (any candidate not selling his vote will not have sufficient campaign funds to be elected).  Therefore, there is no chance whatsoever that an assembly of 435 or 100 individuals all with promises and obligations to interested parties, is going to pass legislation insuring that those interested parties will no longer have influence over them.  You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.  This is what I mean by institutional corruption; and this is what, in our naïvety, we citizens have not been able to acknowledge for so long.  We honestly believe the promises of idealistic-sounding young candidates, and, to tell you the truth, I believe they are sincere in those promises.  They, too, are naïve, until their seduction by moneyed interests succeeds in bringing them their first taste of real political power.
So we cannot expect them to reform this systemic corruption.  Which means: this problem cannot be fixed through legislation.  If not thus, then how?  Constitutional reform is the only way I see.  A constitutional amendment on Campaign Finance Reform, ratified by the people (rather than the Congress—we must always remember that we have this option, since the Congress is no more going to pass a Campaign Finance Reform constitutional amendment than they would pass legislation to that effect), could reshape the political system.

                                                                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a deeper reason to seek constitutional reform rather than legislation on this issue.  The function of the constitution is to shape the government, and the function of legislation is to specify the details of laws that affect citizens and corporations.  The constitution is the law of government—it is the description of how government is constituted, how it runs, what its powers are and are not. 

By this standard, certain proposed amendments (such as the perennially proposed “Flag Burning” amendment) as well as certain past amendments (such as the “Prohibition” amendment) do not belong in the constitution: their proper domain is legislation.  These amendments have no bearing on the running of government—they are social issues.  They also became political issues—and for that reason especially they should have no place in the constitution.  One of the main philosophical thrusts of the constitution has to do with the way power is divided among different branches of government: the intended effect is the neutralization of political power for any particular group in society, in favor of a balanced government that does not disproportionately represent one group above others, and that limits and divides the powers of leaders in order to insure that no individual or interest becomes too powerful.

The issue of campaign-finance reform, on the other hand, belongs squarely in the constitution, and we need to deal with it on a constitutional level, not only to settle it once and for all, but also to bring institutional clarity to an area not fully covered by the founding fathers.  There are a number of other issues exacerbated by the last six years of political life in America, which might also deserve constitutional treatment—not least among them the issue of Presidential Powers.
In fact, I see at least six or seven separate issues, all of which might deserve constitutional amendments (more on what they are later).  What I am envisioning is some kind of “Bill of Reform”—a package of anywhere from five to fifteen amendments revising and updating all areas of governmental operations—a parallel to the “Bill of Rights” package of our first ten amendments.  Such a large-scale reform is of course possible in theory (and permitted by the constitution itself), but it would take quite a bit of effort to put together such a package, let alone ratify it.

Which is why I believe it is necessary for us to convene a new constitutional convention.  I am not the first one to say so.  Though I have thought about this for many months, Bill Maher, of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” proposed it publicly on his last show of the year, Friday Nov.  17.  He mentioned, in that context, the fact that Jefferson and the other Framers believed that it was necessary for us to frequently re-convene and revise the constitution, since they could not anticipate the changes that would happen in American society and government over the course of its history.  They expressed the fact that their constitution was an experiment, not meant to be set in stone.  They believed that it was the job of people to constantly question and reform their governing.   

                                                                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Therefore, in the spirit of Philidelphia, I hereby convene the second constitutional convention (actually, I am seconding the motion proposed by Mr. Bill Maher).  This convention will be very different than the first—which took place among a small select group of political elites.  In this convention, every citizen in America who chooses to will take part, through large-scale public discussion, and a gradual process of convening.  First, an acknowledgement that perhaps it is time to revise our constitution; Second, a discussion of the aspects of our governing that need reform, Third, a solidification into specific amendments and debate over the details of those amendments.  Fourth, a ratification process, involving by necessity the majority of the American populace. 

I honestly, idealistically, perhaps even naively, believe that this process can occur democratically—in the sense of allowing for the contributions and opinions of all interested Americans.  I believe that some kind of voting can occur at every step of the process.  If, for example, a website were set up, on which proposed amendments were posted for the public to view and comment upon, this website could also allow visitors to vote on every line or article of those proposed amendments.  Those visitor votes could serve to shape the final form of the amendments, insuring that in the ratification process, the public will be voting on something they have already approved in some form.

For now, it is a convention of one, but I imagine it is already, as I write this, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of “conventions of one” happening inside many imaginative citizens.  In a future essay, I will specify some of the amendments I have thought about.  But I don’t want to prejudice the discussion too soon: everyone who believes in the ideals of our democracy should be having this conversation with him or herself, preparing to convene with other like-minded citizens.  We can start through conversation and a sharing of ideas, and the convention will start to grow on its own, and take its own shape.

If you believe such a convention is desirable as well as possible, please forward this essay to anyone you think is interested.  Begin inviting your fellow citizens to your “convention of one,” and perhaps we can find each other, and perhaps we can even agree on some common ground.  What do you think needs reform?  What amendments do you believe might be useful to add to our constitution?  Please post your opinions as comments on this blog.

Comments

[eNews Reference.com]

I hope for once people start believing in the the will of the American people. It wasn't until the wee hours of the night on November 10th that the media comglomerates weren't afraid to say the voters went to the polls and sent a very clear message to the world.

You can stop espousing all of the rhetoric in this blog if think we can't get together and accomplish something for the good of the country.

I don't know what the framers of the constitution would say about this generation.

http://www.enewsreference.com

[David Octavius]

The Present Constitution is very good in spirit but lacks the power it once had to check government to protect liberty. I too believe there should be Constitutional reform. I even wrote some ideas on it:

http://DavidOctavius.com

Feel free to let me know what you think

[Bob]

The time is now for all freedom loving people unite in calling for an Article V convention. Learn more about it at the websites listed.

Bob Fowler

“We the people” are the government, of the People,
by the people, and for the people, and are the “Deciders”.
We have the power to restore America to greatness and honor.
You can help rescue our endangered democracy from the political-corporate elite,
through clean elections, a popular vote for president, a strong
third political party, and an Article V Constitutional convention.
Learn more at www.helpchangeamerica.com.
Email: bob@helpchangeamerica.com
also visit these sites:

www.delusionaldemocracy.com
www.foavc.org

[David Thum]

Add term limits to the issues for the second constituional convention.

[unknown]

I think we should revise and correct our Constitution but we should still keep the majority of the Constitution that comes from our forefathers. We have a document thats lasted for over 200 years. That, in itself is pretty amazing. We should definetly keep God in the Constitution because He is who is holding our nation together!!