Chapman begins: "The Republican presidential candidates love the Constitution, but if they have their way, you'll barely recognize it. Like a plastic surgeon meeting with a prospective patient, they see all sorts of ways it could be vastly improved."
Only two amendments have been made to the Constitution since 1968. (photo: Miami New Times)
Amend the Constitution?
22 January 12
he Republican presidential candidates love the Constitution, but if they have their way, you'll barely recognize it. Like a plastic surgeon meeting with a prospective patient, they see all sorts of ways it could be vastly improved.
Rick Santorum favors a constitutional ban on abortion. Mitt Romney has endorsed an amendment to require a balanced federal budget. Both support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
They are no match for Newt Gingrich. He not only favors a balanced-budget measure but has previously supported changes to limit congressional terms, outlaw flag-burning, promote prayer in public schools and deport mouthy ex-wives.
Ron Paul proposes to limit federal spending and taxes, as well as repealing the 16th Amendment (income tax) and the 17th Amendment (popular election of U.S. senators). Rick Perry had a different amendment for each day of the week.
Leave aside for the moment the wisdom of such revisions. The important thing to keep in mind is that none of these candidates, if elected, will bring any of them to pass. The chance is not small. The chance is zero.
The balanced-budget amendment has been around for some 40 years without getting anywhere. Likewise with the proposed abortion ban. It materialized after the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and is no closer to adoption today than it was then.
If there were sufficient support for a balanced budget to amend the Constitution, it would be superfluous, because Congress would take the steps needed to eliminate deficits. Amazingly enough, it did exactly that in the 1990s.
When it comes to abortion, on the other hand, Gallup has found a majority of Americans has consistently been against an amendment to forbid all abortions (except to save the mother's life). That hasn't changed, and there is no reason to think it will any time in the foreseeable future.
When Gingrich became speaker after the 1994 Republican takeover of the House, the GOP had a clear mandate for the term-limits amendment, which had been part of the "Contract with America" it rode to victory. It was a popular idea that had been adopted in many states, but the amendment fell short in the House.
The flag-burning amendment, a response to a Supreme Court decision ruling that desecration of Old Glory was protected by the First Amendment, attracted strong public support. But it failed repeatedly before fading away.
Amending the Constitution was meant to be hard, which is why it's happened only twice since 1968. Any president looking at this record of futility would find plenty of reasons not to try.
One is that he's highly unlikely to succeed, and presidents don't look for opportunities to lose. Getting a constitutional amendment requires mobilizing a strong national consensus on a particular issue. It requires persuading each house of Congress to muster a two-thirds vote in favor of a specific proposal. And it requires ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Even if the amendment had a plausible chance of passage, it would probably take longer to achieve than a president's tenure in office. He would use up a lot of precious time and political capital that could be devoted to more achievable goals, with more immediate rewards. All this would get in the way of pragmatic, incremental changes.
It may make sense for pro-life groups to hold out hope of a constitutional amendment, since they are in the fight for the long haul. It makes much less sense for a president, who will be gone in four years or eight.
In some cases, a proposed amendment would give members of Congress an excuse to put off serious legislative action. You can prove you're serious about the government debt by voting to raise taxes or cut spending. But that means antagonizing voters who would have to endure unwelcome sacrifices.
So why bother? It's much easier to demonstrate your fiscal conservatism by voting for a balanced-budget amendment - while opposing the actual fiscal changes it would require. Anti-abortion candidates can endorse an amendment without much risk, since pro-choice voters know it's not going to pass.
When a presidential candidate vows to amend the Constitution, he may be doing any number of things: dodging a tough issue, pandering to a bloc of voters or trying to sound bold. What he is not doing is telling the truth.
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 19 February 2012
|
 21 February 2012
|
 21 February 2012
|
 20 February 2012
|
 20 February 2012
|
 19 February 2012
|
 19 February 2012
|
 21 February 2012
|
 20 February 2012
|
Comments
The ERA is still out there waiting for a few more states to ratify.
In the states where it has not been ratified, it would be great to see any Dems that run there show support for it.
But just in case time for state radification of ERA ran out at least 20 yrs ago.
I know I can get sarcastic at times, but not this time.
To disarm the citizenry.
To get rid of the electoral college.
To get rid of the Senate and just have the House of Representatives .
To have one national presidential primary involving all candidates from all parties.
To have an automatic run off election one month later between the top 2 vote getters.
To make elections 100% publicly funded by law.
To strengthen the 4th Amendment to explicitly state that there is, absolutely a right to privacy.
Ahh yes build your own arsenal. Who do you plan to you use it on? Do you honestly think you could ever amass enough weapons to "protect your privacy" from the government?
YOU'RE OUTGUNNED SLICK!
lol
As I said, YOU'RE OUTGUNNED SLICK!
Also it's the 2nd Amendment that garutees the right to bear arms, the 4th Amendment has to deal with the creation of states, gararuntee by the Fed gov't to protct the States and extradition of criminals across state lines.
Says nothing about personal privacy and besides id you think they care about it now do you really think ther will be a clause added to the constitution about it?
Here's MY version:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
SOUNDS LIKE PRIVACY TO ME.
Then again, conservatives like yourself, HATE individual privacy or ANY indiviudual rights outside the 2nd Amendment. That's why I'd make it in plain English "YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY" (please note my original comment).
So, on to the next strange thing about your commentary:
YOU brought up the idea that we can't protect the 4th Amendment without the 2nd Amendment. I called you out on the logic behind that statement. The ONLY logic to use the 2nd Amendment to protect the rest is by building an arsenal.
If that's NOT what you meant, then please explain how the 2nd Amendment guarantees ANY other right.
Maybe you should look up what it actually says.
What we have learned is that the system has changed greatly, both parties following an agenda set for them. Presidential candidates can yak their heads off, but they will do little more than the plan already set.
Ever heard of the justice party or the green party? Not saying I would vote for them, just that there are more than two. Now, then, why would even informed people still think there are only two parties? Isn't it because of a MSM blackout? And why a blackout? Could it be that we are presented with the two coopted candidates that won't disturb the status quo, yet give us enough semblant of democracy?
What did electing our good old Barak achieve, again?
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? First of all, and I really hope you take this back to your right wing friends so we can get to a rational discussion. President Obama was never the Progressive movement's "golden boy". He was and is slightly to the left of his main rival Hillary Clinton. She and her husband are both slightly right of center.
NEITHER CLINTON OR OBAMA ARE LEFT WING DEMOCRATS. They are not Progressives, they are certainly not Socialists or Communists.
The articles here on RSN and other sites repeatedly call Obama to task for many of the Patriot Act style provisions he endorses.
But, to get to your main point, after you got in your little evil-Obama myth regurgitation. What regulations is Obama burying the nation in? I thought he was ineffective? How is he incapable of doing anything while adding regulations. Which is it?
Tell me and the rest of the RSN audience, what is over regulated. Remember, I want to breathe clean air. I want my kids to be able to buy food that is safe. I don't want 35 pages of tiny print and 10 seconds to decide if I want to buy an item. Are those the type of regulations, that Obama did not necessarily put in place; that you want?
In other words, if you hate PRESIDENT Obama, wait until a liberal gets in office!
Safe food: there are a consistent outbreaks of E coli all the time due to poor food handling but yet people insist me make MORE rules against it.
Easy to read warning lable: Check but the FDA already heavily regulates the food industry while turning a blind eye to all these wonder drugs being pumped out.
Keeping industry regulated is a needed thing look at China, but ther's a point to where we need to stop re-inventing the wheel and either scrap it all and start from scratch and as horrible as it is with everyone needing a job because of enviromental laws that are getting out of hand, why do you think most of US manufacturing has moved overseas.
You'll notice that it hasn't moved to Scandinavia, or France or Germany. No. It's moved to places like India, Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia and Mexico. If you want to make the U.S. more like the 3rd world you can get it back. If you want the U.S. to enjoy the standard of living European countries have, you have to start CARING about our standard of living and not just the wages of a chemical company's CEO.
i missed the memo when it became so painfully uncool to have my own opinion.
You silly girl! Those are games played by MEN with rules made by MEN, enforced by MEN. Business is the real world. We don't need no rules in Business because MEN don't cheat, they just do everything possible to win. And that is not cheating. Cheating is done by pantywaist liberal gurley men, and we do need rules so they cannot participate in Business, which of course is for MEN.
Now, woman, go cook me dinner. Lotsa meat and fat dripping down my shirt.
This country need to go back to Civic Class & learn about the Constitution.Or read the original
The President aside from Commander -in-Chief is basically an administrator, the CEO. His job is to implement the legislation passed by Congress. His budget is an estimate of the cost to implement programs authorized by Congress in the previous FY. The 2011 Congress decided to redo the FYI 2011 budget that was passed in 2010 rather than do their job the FYI 2012 budget therefore they are a year behind & purposely creating fiscal crisis holding the budget & peoples livelihoods hostage until the department budget contains what they want. Leaving the President with a choice no funding to pay, feed & cloth the troops or sign a bill with an objectionable section. The full impact of the economic crisis wasn't felt until 2009 Congress in 2008 passed bank bail-out legislation which the new Obama administration had to implement. GOP gifts to corporate sponsors taken care of the GOP could sit back & play obstructionist. Under the rules of the Congress a super majority (60%) is needed to bring a bill to the floor for debate, to end debate & passage. Putting the minority in power working against the will of the people. Adding special provision % holding programs hostage until they get their way & using the stupidity of the people to blame the President for Congresses actions.
We are not happy with him but Republicans scare us more.
Lastly, who do you consider your President?
Very well said!
I hope the Move to Amend movement is successful and have proposed that it be entitled the "Sovereignty of the People" amendment to clarify its aims.
One has to wonder why these GOP "patriots" hate it and government so much they are willing to trash it.
Bush started the process, but let's hopefully correct the errors, not the least of which is the new National Defense Authorization Act which gives rights to the military over civilians. It's treasonous!
Maybe if they actually read it they wouldn't hate it so much!
I agree that all elected Federal employees should be only USA citizen. At one time the USA did not allow dual citizenship I don't remember any debate about the change.
How can you keep your oath to defend & protect the USA Constitution & serve your constituents if you also have allegiance to another sovereign nations & its Constitution?
Marriage shouldn't come with USA citizenship unless they give up citizenship from their country of origin, they can always travel on their spouse's passport & get work visas
I believe we need to go one more step & deny voting rights to those who hold dual citizenship.
I support the idea of an amendment to get money out of politics, which would be a result of activism on the part of honest politicians and informed citizens, not a President seeking to further his personal ideology.
Any man or woman who can coldly call their spouse, sick in the hospital, and tell then they are going to divorce, before they can even recover, can't be sane. "she isn't pretty enough or young enough to be a president's wife. and besides, she has cancer"
to do that, is one of the coldest, least empathic person I ever heard of.
Then he was hounded out of the speakership with 38 ethics violations charged against him. And, he was having an affair while trying to impeach the president on the same charges, This man is not sane. He was portrayed as a tantrum throwing baby back in 2008 by a newspaper in Washington.
This man does Not have the stability to be leader of the so called "free world".
Which is why he may win the repugnant party nomination.
I really think the repugnant party just decided to say, "Oh, screw it! We can't win anyway! Let's just pick Gingrich and see what happens!"
-He's a "moe" (He’s a stooge. Some on line definitions of “stooge” include: “ an actor who assists a comedian by feeding him lines” and “One who allows oneself to be used for another's profit or advantage” HAS THERE EVER BEEN A MORE PERFECT STOOGE?!?)
-Romney's an "eenie" (Eenie’s the first one you think of, just like Romney. Besides, eenie rhymes with weenie)
-Paul's a "meanie" (Let’s face it, he'd sell your grandmother for meat)
-Santorum's a "miney" (He's a BIG friend of BIG coal companies)
(You'll note, Moe's are always the one you pick in the end.)
Conclusion: Gingrich represents repugnant values more than any other candidate. Too bad there wasn't a "Curly" or a "Shemp". It could have been interesting.
I'M PRETTY PROUD OF THIS COMMENT. I THINK I'LL PUBLISH IT. I MAY HAVE FINALLY DECODED REPUGNICAN POLITICAL STRATEGY!
Remember the GOP's rants against activist judges?????
RSS feed for comments to this post.