I do not want a Constitutional Convention, I want a Constitutional Crisis

[Toots]

I want some questions asked and answered but I do not want any re-writing of the Constitution. I want to know if there truly is anything called the "Unitary Executive" and if so exactly how far their powers go. I want to know exactly who the Office of the Vice-President answers to. I want to know if anyone besides Congress can create Law...As I read the Constitution (and I'm certainly no expert) I do not see or recognize the powers either Bush* or Cheney are claiming. I want someone with notability to create a "Crisis" so these questions might be addressed. I wish it could happen before we bomb Iran but I feel time is running out far to quickly. When a Congressional subpoena is not recognized not obeyed something has been lost. This hasn't yet actually happened but Cheney has hinted that he will not heed a subpoena from Congress. Am I asking for the moon here?

[zanne]

1. I think we all want that.

The problem is, whose Constitutional Law experts will carry the most weight? They can be bought, too.

[originalpckelly]

2. The problem is a very fundamental one...

another person cannot represent ones own interests very well, they usually represent their own. Only in cases where lawyers are highly paid (or highly dedicated) do they represent their client, but it should be noted clients are always well known by their lawyers (representatives).

This whole idea of representative democracy is a sham, the only interest being represented are the interests of millionaires, which many of the highest leaders in Congress are.

I doubt even if the people of DU, an activist site, know any of the people in Congress. "Representatives" represent too many people to actually "represent them".

[mmonk]

3. We're in one. Have been for awhile now.

[itsmesgd]

4. I think that we have a great Constitution. I wish that we would use it and live under it.

Shrub's actions have gone around it and beyond it on many occassions, and unfortunately we don't have a Congress that will hold him accountable. As it currently stands, Patrick Fitzgerald is the biggest Constitutional advocate that is only because he has let to roll over for the Shrub's thugs.

[HuskiesHowls]

5. The problem with our constitution (as I see it),

is that it makes the assumption that moral and ethical people are going to be the ones in power. People who understood innately that the real power of the United States of America was in its small people, the ones willing to do the real work and make the real sacrifices to make this country what it could be.

It did not make allowances for a cabal desiring to have all good things for themselves, while forcing the masses into destitution, to take the reins of government. If it had been foreseen that this could happen, there probably would have been some mechanism for a "vote of no confidence" added. Yes, people can be impeached, but look at the highly restrictive rules for that.

It needs to be remembered, also, that the only good conspiracy is one that is planned to take years, or even decades, and aid the descendants of the conspirators and is highly invisible. Reagan was a likable, highly recognizable man that was easily sold to the American public, due to his years in Hollywood as an actor. It doesn't mean that he knew anything about politics, statesmanship, or truly cared about the "little people".

Nixon was the last of what could be considered "real Republicans". He was more liberal than most Democratic politicians are today. For his weaknesses, he was, I believe, a president who believed that he could make life better for the masses.

[frogcycle]

6. you got it

however, i don't think it necessarily assumed moral and ethical people across the board...

it assumed that the checks and balances would be more balanced, and that the elected representatives would answer to the people, not to big business. It did not anticipate the advances in technology and communications that make running for office such a big-business enterprise, nor the enormous power of huge multinational corporations. In the days when the Constitution was drafted, I don't know what were large corporations, but I bet the only ones of any appreciable size were the shipping companies. Certainly no big oil, big steel, big auto. There may have been fairly large banking institutions, but nothing like todays financial monoliths.


That is the change that makes urgent a revisiting of the formula upon which checks and balances is based.

Getting all those people - senators, congressmen, judges, and executives - out of the pockets of big money is the urgent need. It may not be possible; we have sat back and let it grow until, like the people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", we don't know whether ANYONE is still human.

The talk about "election reform" and "ethics" legislation is superficial. It contemplates just enough to lull us back into complacency.


I don't pretend to know the answer(s), but the nature and scope of the problem is pretty clear. And it definitely calls for an update to the formula.

Somehow there needs to be a complete dissolution of the entire lobbying infrastructure. There needs to be a "chinese wall" protecting the elected officials from the predators, or, put another way, constraining them from getting to the hog-trough. Whatever.

As it is now, the lobbyists write most of the laws. Congresscritters don't even read them, and their staffers may or may not. We need a government-funded institution to write laws. It could be an extension of the congressional staffs, but I like the idea of it being a standing bureaucracy, not beholden to individual congresscritters. It would have expertise centers for all sorts of topics, with scientists, lawyers, etc. It would be huge. But it would be people working for US. Its divisions would be matched up with the congressional committees/subcommittees.

When corporations or special interests want a law changed or new law written, they would put together their request - pay all those lobbyists they now have to draft the position papers, arguments, etc. They then submit it like a proposal, to a congressional clearing house. If congress thinks their project has merit, congress would turn it over to the expertise center to examine, comment, etc. Congress would hold hearings on it. Alternative proposals would be received and considered. Congressional staffers could powwow with the expertise center people, argue about it, etc. But there would be NO DIRECT CONTACT between the interest group's people and the congresscritters or staffers, and the actual law would be written from scratch by the people-funded staff of experts. Certainly a congresscritter with a particular interest would focus on that, and would be well aware of industry desires. But the practicality of that congresscritter being able to drive that particular company's agenda (think Inhofe) to their own financial gain would be limited.

This is a rough cut at it, but I am thinking of something akin to the sealed-bid procedures used in government procurement (not always successful, I know - but at least there is a semblance of a separation). Instead of congress debating a monstrous bill full of crap they don't even know is there, they would debate the general principles, generate a "sense of the congress" - like a requirements document or request for proposal in private industry - and the experts would put together a response for them to approve. It would go back and forth as happens today, but in a somewhat less polarized political environment. There would be many, many more laws, with far fewer clauses and subclauses. The "line-item-veto" concept would be a natural. The so-called "earmarks" would go away. If a bridge to nowhere was desired in Alaska, the senator could propose it standalone, and the transportation expertise center would consider the merits. It would not, could not, be slipped through as an attachment to some unrelated bill.


The second aspect to this would be the elimination of all campaign contributions. Period. Across the board.

Expand that lame federal matching funds program. Don't make it matching. Make it that if you want to run, and qualify, you get a budget and you live within it. There are a lot of drawbacks, loopholes, "what ifs" to this, and I admit I haven't thought it through. So it needs a lot of work to be feasible.

But in principle it should be the goal.

Sure, there would still be interest groups running their own ads, but the motivation would be reduced. Idealogues would campaign for or against candidates based on their abortion positions and such, but not based on knowing they had them in their pocket. And ads run by interest groups would be better-differentiated from the candidates own ads.

Anyway, what needs to be done is what big corporations do. Systems analysis. Business process engineering. Figure out what you want the end state to be and look at where you are and figure out what it takes to get from here to there. That is what the forefathers did, and they did it extremely well within the limits of the reality of the time. We just need to update based on the current reality.

[Jonathan50]

7. I agree, I think we need a constitutional crisis.

The Constitution being shredded and used for bum wipe counts as a Constitutional crisis as far as I'm concerned.