Monday, July 8, 2019

A New Constitution?


What follows is the beginning of an article in The Atlantic from several years ago that makes a case for a new U.S. Constitution. Many thoughtful people have called for a Constitutional Convention to replace our aging national framework.

-----

The U.S. Needs a New Constitution--Here's How to Write It
Let's face it: What worked well 224 years ago is no longer the best we can do.
by Alex Seitz-Wald and National Journal, Nov. 2, 2013

America, we've got some bad news: Our Constitution isn't going to make it. It's had 224 years of commendable, often glorious service, but there's a time for everything, and the government shutdown and permanent-crisis governance signal that it's time to think about moving on. "No society can make a perpetual constitution," Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1789, the year ours took effect. "The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead .… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years." By that calculation, we're more than two centuries behind schedule for a long, hard look at our most sacred of cows. And what it reveals isn't pretty.
If men (and, finally, women) as wise as Jefferson and Madison set about the task of writing a constitution in 2013, it would look little like the one we have now. Americans today can't agree on anything about Washington except that they want to "blow up the place," in the words of former Republican Senator George Voinovich as he left Congress, and maybe that thought isn't so radical.
Clocking in at some 4,500 words—about the same length as the screenplay for an episode of Two and a Half Men—and without serious modification since 18-year-olds got the vote in 1971, the Constitution simply isn't cut out for 21st-century governance. It's full of holes, only some of which have been patched; it guarantees gridlock; and it's virtually impossible to change. "It gets close to a failing grade in terms of 21st-century notions on democratic theory," says University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson, part of the growing cadre of legal scholars who say the time has come for a new constitutional convention.

Put simply, we've learned a lot since 1787. What was for the Founders a kind of providential revelation—designing, from scratch, a written charter and democratic system at a time when the entire history of life on this planet contained scant examples of either—has been worked into science. More than 700 constitutions have been composed since World War II alone, and other countries have solved the very problems that cripple us today. It seems un-American to look abroad for ways to change our sacred text, but the world's nations copied us, so why not learn from them?

-----

If you are interested in reading the rest of this article, click here:


Saturday, July 6, 2019

A Supreme Court Case for Monday


On Tuesday, we'll consider a particular Supreme Court decision regarding the person shown below. Her grave's headstone tells a confusing story: "born" is clear, but both "departed" and "at peace," with different dates separated by years? The justices wrestled with this case and briefly in class so will we.




Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Supreme Court Humor

There's not much available. Check the cartoon below.

I'll take Independence Day off and will resume the blog and checking email and the like on Friday, July 5.


Tuesday, July 2, 2019

The Winner and Loser

What do the presidents below have in common?

They all won the Electoral College vote while losing the popular vote.

Imagine how different the history of the United States might be if these four people had not served, and if their opponents had served instead.

How does this kind of odd election happen? Since a strong majority of presidential elections have produced the same candidate winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote, that's an especially good question. In class, the suggestion was that extremely close elections are more likely to produce that outcome.

In particular, what happened in 2016?  In brief, this:  Clinton won a number of large states such as California and New York by huge margins. She almost won a number of other large states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. At the same time, Trump won a number of small states (which held fewer voters) by big margins, and just barely won several sizable states (not just Pennsylvania and Florida--also Michigan and Wisconsin). Clinton wracked up huge vote totals in big states; Trump won several key states by just a few thousand votes. Total:  nationally about 3 million more people voted for Clinton, but the Electoral College is winner-take-all almost everywhere so Trump's big wins in many small states and narrow wins in several key states was enough to give him the EC edge.

The winner/losers are (clockwise from top left) Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Donald Trump in 2016, and George W. Bush in 2000.


That Wordy Executive Orders Slide


Monday, July 1, 2019

Two Final Slides, Scandal Coverage

We didn't get to these in class, but they're important. Here you go.

To answer one obvious question about the third item on the first slide:  yes, sometimes investigations are necessary. Watergate and many other scandals were uncovered at least in part by Congressional investigations, and those illegal actions needed to be exposed. However, using investigation as a political tool (both parties have sometimes done so) rather than to get to the heart of an illegal action is essentially "democracy by other means"--that is, action in a democracy that is not based on elections and policy arguments but instead on smearing an opponent. Too much of that is like fast food--both plentiful and unhealthy.



Friday, June 28, 2019

Young Voters: Data and Trends

Look at this and engage in just a bit of thought.

Add to this information the fact that young voter participation increased in the 2018 mid-term election (over the 2014 mid-term) by about 10 percent. (That does not predict future performance, but is relevant when considering the prospects for future performance.)

What impact might these facts have--at least potentially--on the 2020 elections?