No We Don't

Need a new constitution.

When people start calling for a new constitution, look out. Remember the words of Abraham Lincoln:

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

The odd thing is, half of this guy's article argues that we get back to the original constitution, and the rest of it just gets rid of some bits that he apparently finds inconvenient. One of which is how the senate represents the states.

* Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation's people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states -- and thus the unfairness -- was far less.

But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let's build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.

Dude, that is by design!!!! Look up "tyranny of the majority" and try to understand it. The House of Representatives works on the model you propose. The Senate was designed as a separate body to balance against this problem. Why don't you just propose we abolish the Senate? Pretty much the same effect. The Senate and the House are two checks and balances in our democratic republic and they are there precisely check each other. The House is basically our version of the House of Commons. It makes sure the people get represented. The Senate is basically the House of Lords. It makes sure the states get represented. This makes sure "big" states can't push "little" states around.

Too bad you only need a journalism degree to be authorized to instruct people on what to believe.

Do they not teach this stuff anymore? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

The country was designed as a federation of states. Many parties over the years have chipped away at the autonomy of the states to further their agendas through the Federal Government, and they forget that this is not really, completely a democracy, and was never supposed to be. We use democracy as a tool, but we have to play by certain rules to be fair to everyone. Those rules are in the Constitution and are heavily discussed in the federal papers.

These people can't get what they want Constitutionally (yet). They've tried and been successful in the last 30 years with the Supreme Court to bypass the constitution by getting legislation from the bench, but now we have two new and more constructionalist judges.

So they want to change the Constitution instead of amending it.

Great. At that point, America isn't America anymore.

You say you want a revolution?

Be careful what you ask for. Ask the Russians.