Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Happy Constitution Day!
Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago, 40 men from 13 states signed the constitution produced by the Philadelphia Convention. On June 21 of the following year, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, thereby activating it. New York and Virginia quickly followed suit and North Carolina and Rhode Island limped in by the the end of 1789.
While there’s credit to go around, the true heroes of the day were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington. In a little-known part of the tale, the three of them hijacked the Annapolis Convention of 1786 — convened to help settle trade disputes and reduce tariffs between the states — and used it to call for a second convention to consider amending the Articles of Confederation. Largely through their leadership, that meeting overstepped its mandate and proposed an entirely new form of government. What Adams did to the Continental Congress in 1776, they repeated twice in the decade that followed.
There can be little doubt that the US Constitution is one of the most brilliant governing documents ever produced — perhaps the most. Like all human achievements, however, the US Constitution wasn’t perfect. Some of these shortcomings were unavoidable (the document simply could not have been ratified without some acceptance of slavery), while others were genuine mistakes (the original scheme for electing presidents was absurdly naieve and subsequently fixed by the 12th amendment).
Here’s today’s challenge: given a time machine and a private audience with a few notable delegates, what would you have suggested? Bear in mind that your suggestion must have a chance of passing the convention and being ratified by at least nine states.
My suggestion:
Gerrymandering has had a loathsome, corrupting influence on our national politics, essentially empowering politicians to choose their own citizens. Congressional districts are particularly prone to this because they don’t have the same pressures as town and county governments to be reasonably contiguous and rational. While the era of the worst abuses is mostly — though not entirely — behind us, I’d suggest some additional text to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The text would require congressional districts to either be made of up whole counties, or have strict shape limits on them (e.g., “district borders shall have no more than eight sides total, all of which must either be straight, follow a state or international border, or the shores of a navigable body of water.”).
Image Credit: “Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States” by Howard Chandler Christy – The Indian Reporter. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
Published in General
Invite Patrick Henry.
I would have had Franklin say this first rather than last:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
There is a proposed amendment out there that would have congressional districts set at 50,000 residents instead of the current 800,000. Gerrymandering matters less when the districts are smaller. The Founders proposed it back in the day.
I would propose that all elected federal officials have a limit of three terms.
In a country of over 300 million people, I’d be worried about having 6,000 members of Congress.
A line item veto.
Changes in federal salaries must be approved by a majority of state legislatures within one year of proposing such a change.
Any mandate of expenditures on the states by the federal government should be paid for by the federal government.
As a source of possible alternatives, I recommend looking at Max Farrand’s “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787” to see all the points that were discussed, many of which were rejected. I’m reading through volume 1 at the moment. It’s available on the web and I’ve downloaded all 3 volumes to my Kindle. The discussions are interesting to follow and give a somewhat more detailed analysis of what was on the minds of the Framers than you might find in The Federalist Papers.