Constitutional Tinkering

[TheBigDog]

I am always impressed with the beauty of the US Constitution. But the continuous improvement urge in me always keeps me thinking. So here is my idea for a rather major reform to the US Constitution.

 

1) No person may hold the office of Senator, Representative, or President for consecutive terms. But there shall be no limit to the number of non-consecutive terms that a person may hold office.

 

2) A person may in consecutive terms move from one office to another, only if moving from one legislative body to another (Representative to Senate, Senate to President)

 

3) A Vice President may run for the office of President only if they resign the office of Vice President 1 year prior to the election.

 

4) Terms of service in the House of Representatives will change to 4 years, with half the seats turning over every second year. Officers in the House of Representatives will be selected among the memebers in their second two years of service. Each state will have no less than 2 members in the House of Representatives, with all states that currently have one getting s second, and no other increases or decreases happening as a result. This will increase the total membership in the house. Half the representatives from each state will be chosen each two year cycle, except states where there is an odd number where one class will always have one more representative than the other.

 

There are many purposes to this. First, since nobody can be elected for consecutive terms, the Congress will stay in session longer as NONE of the members need to go home and campaign for themselves. It means that every seat is up for grabs, with no incumbents sitting on reputation alone. The leadership of the house and senate will also be turning over every couple of years, so you don't get professional politicians running the show forever and creating power for themsleves on a national level when they represent just a small constituent someplace.

 

So, lets discuss...

 

Bill

[Freddy]

Sounds like good plan to fix a broken system. Congress will never vote a 2/3 majority in both Houses to send this to the states. Something about job security makes me think that. So only a grass roots effort from around the country requiring 2/3 of the states to apply to Congress for a Constitutional Convention, which has never taken place since 1789 because of a huge fear factor of an open convention with anything goes. Good luck!

[Buffy]

I dunno. Term limits are kind of sucky in a way, because they destroy institutional memory. We've had them here in California for many years now, and the quality of the legislature just keeps going down: even Ahnnold can run laps around them. We miss some of the real "operators" like Willie Brown, and in fact, what we see is just musical chairs: we just elected Jerry Brown as our Attorney General (I did vote for him, I liked him as Mayor of Oakland except he forced the A's to move to Fleamont!).

 

I'm a strong believer in the problems associated with the Law of Unintended Consequences....

 

Question: why do you want to make the House just like the Senate? The whole point of the House is to make it *extremely* responsive, and if we make their seats safe (well, they're not coming back are they?), they'll just be much more likely to do whatever the lobbiests tell them todo: one thing we've really found in California is that because there's no experience among the elected officials, the lobbyists end up writing all the laws! Its totally sucky!

 

Term limits do force people to turn over, but I don't think 1 term makes sense. In the case of the house, maybe 3 or 4. Maybe the same for the Senate (they're supposed to be "stability").

 

I do think there's stuff we can do keep incumbents from having so much power, to get re-elected, but I think most of that has to do with money: the people who are buying influence go with winners as much as they go with the party that agrees with them. To a great extent though, people re-elect their reps because they "take care of their own." Its always been a truism that people "hate congress, but love their own congressional rep."

 

We're well-versed in constitutional tinkinering here in California--we can change it directly at the ballot box, unlike most states that are stuck with simply being to "recommend" to their legislatures what to do--but its a two-edged sword.

 

Living in interesting times,

Buffy

[C1ay]

I'd prefer to start with undoing the damage we've done, like repealing the 17th Amendment, before changing things....

[Southtown]

Term limits are kind of sucky in a way, because they destroy institutional memory.

Ditto. Terms have limits naturally. That's why their called 'terms'. Re-election is never guaranteed, and besides there will never be a substitute for active, informed voters.

 

Campaign funding usually favors the incumbent, of course. Funding should be public, because otherwise elections will always favor the rich. (not to mention lobbyism.)

[Buffy]

So we should go back to letting Governors appoint senators all the time? :phones:

 

Smoky back rooms, oh my,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Nah, I think Clay just means governers over feds in times of deadlock...

[Buffy]

But prior to the 17th, many states had no popular vote for Senators! That was the whole point!

 

Federalism has its benefits,

Buffy

[C1ay]

So we should go back to letting Governors appoint senators all the time?

Governors didn't appoint Senators, State legislatures did.

 

In it's original form of government our system had one branch to represent the people, the House of Representatives, one branch to represent the States, the Senate, and the Executive branch. Now that the Senators are chosen by the people, and not the States, we effectively have two Houses of Representatives since Senators have a compulsion to treat the people as their consituents in order to get elected or re-elected.

[Buffy]

I know. I overstated for emphasis, although as a practical matter, Guv's that had friendly legislatures (where have we seen that?), basically did the appointment with rubberstamp from the "people's representatives".

 

The pre-17th regime was arguably "people's representatives" too, just one more step removed--and thus one less step responsive. The intellectual underpinning of the Senate was the UK's House of Lords which back then was all hereditary land owners, and I've always thought that the 17th just remedied the Senate being simply the representatives of the powerful. I think its hard to argue that the pre 17th results represented a superior form of governance. What do you see as the *benefits* of an appointed Senate?

 

Power to the People,

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

My intention here is not term limits, but quite the opposite. There is currenlty at a Constitutional level only term limits on the President. My changing it to eliminate non consecutive terms a person could become president any number of times, as long as they were non-consecutive. So Clinton winning in 1992 would have meant a different candidate for the democrats in 1996. But Clinton would have been eligable again in 2000. And assuming he won then, he would be eligable again in 2008. On the flip side, Bush(41) would not have been Clinton's opponent in 1992, and would have been eligable again in 1996.

 

One of the ideals of the framers, as I have always understood it, was that the governemt would be run by citizens who leave private life temporarily for public office, and then return again to private life. This would help to make that ideal happen in practice.

 

The third benefit of this (depending upon your perspective) is that it could bring an end to the two party system. One of the things that keeps the two party system so entrenched is the lock on leadership positions that they hold in the house and the senate. With turnover in the Congress happening in a more wholesale fashion and leadership changing *even when a party retains power* every two years, you would have the opportunity for a third party to come in as a powerful force very quickly. The existing parties, and the rules of the houses would need to change the playing field to make caucus agreements for power much like you see in Parlimentary governments.

 

As for making the House like the Senate. I am open to suggestions on that. I was originally thinking of just keeping the house like it is and adding the consecutive terms clause, but this eliminates continuity. I created the 4 year term so that you would have some continuity within each class, but still have the turnover I am looking for.

 

As for the problem with lobbyists writing legislation. There is no cure for that. But if the person I am voting for is going to be in and out, as a voter I would expect them to present legislative proposals during their campaign.

 

One other benefit that could come out of this is there is the opportunity to keep the legislatures open for business more days of the year. And I might even add to the text that the House and Senate must me in session no less than 200 days each year. After all, nobody needs to run for reelection.

 

Bill

[Zythryn]

I think that is an awesome idea Bill. I love the idea of not having any politician that is currently in power running for re-election.

I am not so sure about one point, and that is the Vice-president not being able to run for president unless he quits a year prior to the election. However, that is a 'meh' point for me, I don't know that it would make much difference one way or the other.

 

The other issue I would like to tweak on the constitution would be to outlaw lobbyists working on behalf of businesses. The representative government is here to represent the people, not the businesses.

[Buffy]

The third benefit of this (depending upon your perspective) is that it could bring an end to the two party system.

I think multi-party systems are extremely *weak* because of the fact that the major parties must cow-tow to the extremist parties in legislation to a much greater extent. As it is now, obviously the two major parties we have "cater to their base" *mostly* during elections, then can ignore them during the term when a small minority under a multi-party system can keep the majority hostage. I think Israel is a mess because of this issue.

One of the things that keeps the two party system so entrenched is the lock on leadership positions that they hold in the house and the senate.

Its not the individuals, its the party (unelected) leadership. People like Tom DeLay have power only insofar as they are persuasive *party* leaders, but this type of position does not have to be a sitting member of congress, and this would just move the power brokers into the back room.

With turnover in the Congress happening in a more wholesale fashion and leadership changing *even when a party retains power* every two years, you would have the opportunity for a third party to come in as a powerful force very quickly.

This is a chicken-egg problem: Until at least one third party gains enough power to swing the second-place party into first in a decisive manner, they will not have power, and even then it will behoove the second-placers to keep the thirds, well, in their place! The Democrats have just done this by promising Lieberman a chairmanship if he "stays Democratic." You need a critical mass that is much easier to obtain in a Parliamentary system than our own.

 

And be careful what you wish for!

But if the person I am voting for is going to be in and out, as a voter I would expect them to present legislative proposals during their campaign.

Sigh. Would that all voters be so rational. And kids complain that learning about history and politics "isn't relevant" to them...

 

One other benefit that could come out of this is there is the opportunity to keep the legislatures open for business more days of the year. And I might even add to the text that the House and Senate must me in session no less than 200 days each year. After all, nobody needs to run for reelection.

I'd just make attendance a requirement for getting paid! Unless they can provide a note from their mom, they should get docked for every day and vote they don't show up for!

 

I love this thread BD! :)

 

Different rules,

Buffy

[C1ay]

What do you see as the *benefits* of an appointed Senate?

The same as those in the judiciary, officials that do their job without the worry of getting elected or re-elected.

[Buffy]

The same as those in the judiciary, officials that do their job without the worry of getting elected or re-elected.

Oh but they do! They just have a different constituency, namely the fat cats in the statehouse! Unless you're proposing that--as with the judicary--the executive branch should have exclusive control over deciding who it should be!

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I think that passing the 17th amendment was a difficult, but correct choice among two less then perfect alternatives. I think we've got legislatures that are just as corrupt now as they were then, so the rationale has not changed....

 

Cynically,

Buffy

[C1ay]

Oh but they do! They just have a different constituency, namely the fat cats in the statehouse! Unless you're proposing that--as with the judicary--the executive branch should have exclusive control over deciding who it should be!

I would actually propose that each State choose it's own method of selecting its Senators, even if they choose to do it through a popular vote. Since they are supposed to represent the State, and not the people thereof, it should be up to the State to decide, just as it is with Presidential electors. I do tend to favor an appointed official when the task is to represent some entity other than the people.

[Turtle]

The other issue I would like to tweak on the constitution would be to outlaw lobbyists working on behalf of businesses. The representative government is here to represent the people, not the businesses.

 

As for the problem with lobbyists writing legislation. There is no cure for that.

 

On the whole, I think tinkering with the Constitution is a bad idea. For one thing we have more serious issues for the Legislative branch to handle right now, and for another it is the Judiciary who hold the tinker's tools, the hammer and the anvil.

 

On the issue of lobbyists/special interest groups, there is a general implication that this is new, but it started before the Founders dried the ink on our ruling Federal documents. This is revealed by the personal letters the Founders exchanged, and exposited in James Wood's Pulitzer Prize winning book The Radicalism of the American Revolution. There is a price for Freedom, and a Cost for Freedom; the price is eternal vigilance, the cost is fatigue.

Viva la Constition! :)