A national constitution ought to reflect a society's fundamental values by defining a set of legal principles that can be periodically adjusted in order to reflect a society's changing mores, culture and technology. By that standard, our Constitution is woefully out of date.
From the electoral college to gun rights to the hilariously archaic right to refuse to quarter troops in your home and the $20 threshold for a civil jury trial, the U.S. Constitution contains many head-scratching relics of an America we wouldn't recognize. Living in the age of the musket, James Madison might not be so quick to argue for legalizing the AR-15, assuming that a well-regulated state militia was still a thing.
A work of genius the U.S. Constitution is not. It is almost impossible to amend -- it is in fact the hardest to amend in the world. The immutability of the document is highlighted by the inability of the world's most powerful democracy to enshrine a right as basic as gender equality, a principle that the vast majority of other countries, even dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, have managed to include (at least in theory) in their founding charters.
We haven't successfully amended the Constitution in half a century -- and barely then, which is really weird. "Most liberal democracies -- including the nice, stable ones in Western Europe -- amend their constitutions with great frequency," University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner pointed out in 2014: "Germany amends its Basic Law almost once per year, and France a bit more than once every two years. Indeed, most states in the U.S. amend their constitutions every couple of years."
Because Americans are saturated from birth to death by "living document" propaganda about the eternal majestic genius of the Founding Fathers, the constitution is treated like a sacred stone tablet personally engraved by God rather than what it is: a 234-year-old train wreck. From progressive Democrats to right-wing Republicans there is no thought, much less political will, to suggest that this relic might be altered to better serve 21st-century Americans.
We may not see its flaws, but everyone else does. As recently as 1987, most countries' basic legal charters were directly or indirectly inspired by the American constitution. Not anymore. "Among the world's democracies," a 2012 NYU law review study found, "constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall." When a new country like East Timor or South Sudan emerges on the world stage now, their legal experts look for guidance to the more modern constitutions like those of Canada, India, South Africa and New Zealand. The right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care -- standard rights around the globe -- are absent from the U.S. Constitution. The climate crisis should prompt consideration of a constitutional right of nature, as several countries have.
If we're a vibrant democracy, we should act like one. We ought to ask ourselves: If we were writing a Constitution today from scratch, what would it look like?
Would a contemporary U.S. constitution include an electoral college system? Perhaps. We might join Burundi, Estonia, India, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu, which have electoral college systems.
But probably not. It's far likelier that popular opinion would prevail and that we'd choose our leaders the same way most of the world does. A 55% to 43% majority of Americans told a January 2021 Pew poll that they would prefer the president to be elected by popular vote.
Lefties' complaints about the not-guilty verdict in the recently concluded Kyle Rittenhouse trial prompted me to start thinking about the question of what a 2021 Constitutional Convention would come up with. Legal experts weren't surprised that Rittenhouse got away with killing two men and wounding a third. By every credible account, the jury followed Wisconsin law.
"America today: you can break the law, carry around weapons built for a military, shoot and kill people, and get away with it," said California Governor Gavin Newsom. Well, yes. Not because the jury messed up but because they followed the law -- which means the law is the problem.
If you don't think the law should allow a 17-year-old kid to take an AR-15 military-style assault rifle to a riot, play junior vigilante supercop and wind up shooting three people, I agree. The root of that craziness, however, is not to yell vague complaints about "the state of America;" it's to repeal or amend the antiquated Second Amendment.
The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is a uniquely American oddity. Only two other nations besides the U.S. have one: Mexico and Guatemala. And those two countries' gun laws are nowhere as liberal as ours. Mexico bans the sale or possession of automatic or semi-automatic firearms entirely; there's only gun shop in the whole country, on a heavily guarded army base in Mexico City. Guatemalans can buy semi-automatic weapons, handguns, rifles and shotguns but only with a permit that is hard to get. And ammunition is rationed.
A brand-new United States freshly liberated from the yoke of British colonialism probably wouldn't draft a Second Amendment as we know it. We're no longer a rural society; 95% of Americans don't hunt, and guns have gotten bigger and scarier.
One of three Americans own a gun, so guns would probably remain legal. But there would be regulations limiting firepower and some sort of licensing regime. Following endless mass shootings, Americans currently favor stronger gun-control laws by a 64% to 28% margin, according to an April 2021 Politico poll. "Almost half -- 46 percent -- said that limiting gun ownership was more important than protecting the Second Amendment, while 44 percent said that gun ownership rights were a higher priority," reported The Hill. If gun rights made it into our new constitution, odds are that such a provision would be far weaker than what we have now.
But the Second Amendment, and all the rest, remains impervious to change, which itself won't change until we start asking ourselves: Why?
Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of a new graphic novel about a journalist gone bad, "The Stringer." Order one today. You can support Ted's hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM
27 comments:
Rall can move to Europe.
Yet another example of how someone devoid of reason and insight can become a "journalist."
Just what I wanted tonight, good sound legal opinions about the US Constitution (and suggesting that we should follow France's method) from a cartonist.
Thank you KF. Was good for a laugh before I turn off the light for the night.
We already have a body of law “to reflect a society's fundamental values by defining a set of legal principles that can be periodically adjusted in order to reflect a society's changing mores, culture and technology.” It’s call the U.S. Code, I.e., the federal statutes.
Does this guy really think it should be easier to amend our foundational document than it is to pass laws through Congress? While I’m at it, Congress has the power to regulate of firearms, which is why I don’t have a full-auto machine gun. One should not be able to do through constitutional amendment what he can’t get done through the legislature.
FWIW, I have chosen to live in Mississippi, USA, not any of the other countries mentioned in the op-ed piece. I like it here, and I intend to stay.
Is this guy drunk or just stupid?
The only words in this moronic, infantile diatribe are that the beloved 2nd, "remains impervious to change". ALL the Amendments, and our fundamental rights laid out in our U.S. Constitution are forever protected by only one single thing:
The 2nd Amendment
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by threat of force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized
act.
God created man, and Samuel Colt made them equal.
Oh look, yet another Ivy League graduate pretending to be in touch with the average American's values. How did our Ivy League schools become so infected with communists?
7:07 makes a lot more sense than Ted Rall.
"Let him rave on so that men may know him mad." It's now clear that Rall is a raving lunatic. This fool's idea of a progressive government is one that folds in the breeze ever-changing and amenable to the socio-political theory of popular academia. Every few years we could have a referendum on government or more likely, a revolution. Each generation would want to enforce it's new idea of truth, like a fashion statement. He sounds almost childish, only worse.
I had no idea Mexico’s strict gun laws are the reason you rarely hear of violence in that utopia.
Sounds like the columnist is proposing the use of the Gallup Poll as a substitute for the Constitution.
What we have is a bunch of no-good politicians in Congress (and the white house) - both parties equally guilty. Those stooges cannot even arrange to fund government services on a regular cycle. If they served as the board of any private sector company, they would all have been run off a long time ago. But, they dog whistle their stupid ass supporters with irrelevant issues to keep them distracted and keep the politicians in office so they can keep doing absolutely nothing other than preening for the media who makes a good living reporting all that bullshit.
Drivel. There is a process in place to amend the Constitution, go for it.
Been around ahhhh long time so I knew after a few lines where this guy was heading so I just stopped reading. By the comments he went stupid as most libbies do. Now, it's actually illegal to drive down State St. The military still has on the books that missionary sex is the only way or you can be jailed......
Then just leave. It’s that simple.
As someone smarter than me once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Mr. Rall is accurate about the history, past and present (unlike the commenters who claim to love the United States but not enough to know how to preserve it or read its entire history).
Mr. Ralls surely doesn't assume our Founders clairvoyant, but he certainly shows ignorance of the context.
He overlooks that our Founders thought only male property owners would vote. He doesn't know that was because it was hoped that would insure a level of knowledge and literacy necessary to understand HOW to preserve and democracy and what caused them to fail. He thought those men would stay vigilant when it came to electing those who would have power.
And, he deliberately ignored how adamant they were that judges and the Supreme Court would be apolitical. Sadly, political strategists have gotten around that with "buzz words" and some of our current nominees memberships or participation in purely political memberships groups and activities were ignored during confirmation...most glaringly in the nominations of Breyer,Kavanaugh and Barrett.
He missed that the politicians we elected as well as judges became more interested in popularity as a path to nomination,election and acquiring power. Nor did our Founders imagine we'd care so little about our freedom that we allow political parties to become so powerful.
It's laughable that so many of you suggest those of us who have been here since before the Nation's founding and fought in every war valiantly, should leave. I'm fine with requiring those who can't pass a history test about our Revolution and founding to leave.
And, oh...the poor fool who claims he carries a gun to " feel safe" and "to make him equal". He at least he admits he's insecure without a gun at his side and is too ignorant to keep his family safe without one.
Never has any member of my family since 1771 been a victim of crime. And, none of us had to carry one around all the time. We all can hunt and shoot but we can protect ourselves and our family without dragging a weapon other than our brains around with us. We know we are not protected from ambush or snipers even with a gun so our best defense always in vigilant brains and a knowledge of human behavior and criminal behavior how to identify threats.
And, sigh, I know not of one of you gun nuts gets how that could possibly work. Well, reading books and being educated so you can educate your children, and being independent minded so you are led around the nose by some guy you've never gotten to know just because of their status in a party or religion is a start! Lesson one...every human is fallible so be sure you can trust YOU have the best available knowledge on every subject important to your well being and that of your family!
Sounds like someone needs a free helicopter ride.
this fellow is wrong!
He sets a terrible standard for a constitution.
Within the Ten Commandments lies several rules that have been breached millions of times by God fearing folks. But the one that sends 99 % of us to hell will be the second one on the list. Wait, this is about our constitution.
To follow up on 3:06:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/28/us/politics/cpac-trump-statue.html
I think it's interesting that the sculptor who created this and painted it gold was an 18-year youth pastor, who insists it is not an idol.
And more drivel from 12:28.
3:06pm -
I don't know who you mean by "us" but if 99% of whatever group you are a part of is making and worshiping idols and you believe it will send those who do so to hell, why do you continue your association with such a group?
And Henry Ford was right. The Model T was the perfect automobile and couldn't be improved.
7:28, I wonder what he would have said about the Pinto?
@12:10
Not 7:28, but Ford would have asked who screwed up the Model T, and why did you make all this crap after the 60's?
Post a Comment