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.
Drafting the Constitution of the New World
Ladies and Gentlemen of Ricochet, let’s assume as a thought experiment what some of our members already suspect. The Great American Experiment has failed. Our Body Politic is afflicted with a terminal disease. Whether death will come quickly or slowly is not ours to know, but we may safely assume that our best days are behind us, we’re fastened to a dying animal; our children will inherit a morally and economically impoverished land; alea iacta est.
What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find …
… another country, obviously. Not for us a bunch of wussy poetry about finding strength in what remains behind. All very nice if you’re Wordsworth, but we are Americans. Time to move to the New World. New America, here we come!
Where is it? I don’t know yet, but large tracts of real estate are out there, waiting to be claimed, and we’re an adaptable people. Here’s a map showing uninhabited land: Where should we move?
(I wonder if Australia would sell us half of that uninhabited land? I bet we could make them an attractive offer.)
Anyway, without worrying overmuch about where, for now, let’s think about the basics. The Federalist Papers, Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. We’ve got outstanding foundational documents, we’d all agree, but clearly they’re flawed, because it turns out that Franklin’s warning, “We’ve got a Republic, if you can keep it,” was correct. We couldn’t keep it, so now we have to start fresh.
But let’s not make the same mistakes twice. It would be a shame to have to up sticks and leave again in another 239 years. So how shall we rewrite the Constitution to ensure that New America lasts forever, or at least longer than the old one did? I assume the Constitution needs only minor modifications to prevent us from losing our new country, but of course, the modifications are essential: To lose one country may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.
Clearly, we’re all the descendants of men and women who had the fortitude to leave a dying Old World and undertake the voyage to the New. So let the ancient lands keep the storied pomp, and let’s decamp for New America, where we’ll lift the lamp beside the golden door. Our ancestors did it, so we know we’ve got it in us.
It’ll be great.
But let’s make sure it works. We’ll basically keep the same Constitution, of course. But let’s get it exactly right, and let’s learn from experience, so that we don’t have to do it a third time. Ideas?
Published in Entertainment, General, History
No.
Yes.
No.
Before Franklin, before the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and contemporaneously with the Federalist Papers, there were the Articles of Comfederation and the Anti-Federalist Papers. You might think of the latter as an elaboration of Franklin.
At this point, I’m persuaded the Anti-Federalists got it right. Things went south with the ratification of the Constitution. Our doom was effectively sealed by Marbury vs. Madison. The Bank of North America got the war against sound money going as early as 1781. The Bill of Rights began the view of positive, vs. negative, rights being given by the central government.
It was over within the first decade, in terms of the preconditions being laid down. So it seems we’ll have had a 2-3 century run, which is about average for an empire.
Are you saying that had America not been blighted by people like Jefferson, Madison, & Washington & Hamilton, things would have been better? I guess you can excuse Jefferson–he was skeptical about the Constitution, not that he loved the Articles, & did convert, so to speak. But the others were for the Constitution.
Do you think that under the Articles America stood any chance of surviving longer than it has, or even surviving a few generations?
I think iWe hit the essential point: No document matters if people use every opportunity to skirt the document. It’s not only SCOTUS, but also Congress, POTUS, and the states who are guilty. Our problem goes deeper than the words on the page.
That said, there is one constitutional change that I think would lead to a positive cultural and political feedback loop: Suffrage should be limited to those who have cumulatively paid more in taxes than they have received from the government. In measuring payments, every form should be included: government salaries, welfare payments, entitlement payments, and government grants and contracts.
The Texas that gave us LBJ, Ann Richards, and Wendy Davis? Texas flip-flops between reasonable conservatives and populist demagogues like a rattlesnake (no offense, Midge).
I think Jefferson, Madison, and Washington’s hearts were in the right place, but they ultimately chose unwisely.
Which turns out to have been unfortunate.
Yes. In fact, I think it would have done better, especially at scale of population. In particular, the Civil War wouldn’t have happened, there being no “indivisible union” held together by main force.
I believe this is exactly why there is a vaguely lefty alliance that wins so many elections. They’re for sure that, if they lose consistently, they’ll end up on the bottom of an oligarchy-
As opposed to Hamilton, who was evil in hist heart?
Chose unwisely? No other modern regime has survived as long & as well. It seems like your starting point is–the best known to mankind is simply unacceptable! Maybe you should rethink things…
Well, when ‘indivisible union’ turned out to be questionable, America & England went to war twice in a generation. The notion that the Articles of Confederacy might have collapsed peacefully seems to me utterly laughable. There already were threats of war over borders under the short-lived Articles. The people who did most to get to independence were least satisfied with that first arrangement.
You’re in a position where the only people who managed to get something you like wanted too much of a good thing, by your lights. & whoever might be satisfied with less was not as committed to independence & political community-
This is an absolutely superb idea, and it deserves more play.
My idea would, I believe, be self-correcting to prevent oligarchy. Anyone who is disenfranchised could earn the franchise by refusing government benefits or becoming more productive. Meanwhile, if those in power systematically cut benefits to a group, the group ultimately earns the franchise through that fact, and gains more power.
Today, we seem to have an oligarchy of unionized bureaucratic regulators, congressional staffers, activist lawyers, and political celebrities. How would you break it up?
Well rather than literally cede the fight unfought and flee the continent, why don’t we just kill those who have driven us to this point? It’s not as though they will leave us alone elsewhere.
I certainly wouldn’t want to try to set up a new country populated with those who didn’t have the stomach for the most justified fight in the world.
Well, it would let me out. Law enforcement widows receive government benefits.
A full franchise would certainly be one of them.
The idea could be applied at different levels. A person could earn the right to vote at the state level but not federal, or vice versa.
But the fact is that under my approach, unfortunately most people today would lose the franchise. At a very general level — What do you think our massive deficits are paying for, if not benefits that exceed the taxes paid in?
I think you’re aware, from looking at your fellow countrymen, that they are not satisfied with even the most diluted form of this generosity of yours–‘earning the franchise.’ So strong is their faith in their birthright that they would rather vote in demagogues, suffer first & worse than the rich people they envy & fear, & perhaps bring the country to collapse than accept your reasonableness. Who can change that? A tyranny, & that only.
Right. Like benefits to law enforcement widows. Though when I compared myself to a welfare recipient here on Ricochet, I was informed that I am no such thing—the taxpayers, it seems, are willing to be generous to some who find themselves in need. And maybe veterans receiving benefits are also no such thing? But my son the Marine won’t be able to vote nor will many of his fellow servicemen, especially the wounded ones. On the other hand, I know any number of liberals who, having never served their country or been married to anyone who has, and who are making good money in private enterprises (e.g. working for the New York Times) should be good to go.
Well, obviously they’ll have to expel any liberals who don’t convert. And maybe just evacuate Austin en toto. If its citizenry is made up of former Americans so conservative that even sharing a country (let alone a congress) with those who lean leftward is unendurable, the Conservative Paradise is going to have a bit of a demographic problem-it may resemble a retirement community for heavily-armed mostly-old, mostly-white men.
I think lots of young men might like it, too. Eventually, women who are tired of being disappointed might come around to thinking there is hope there, or at least a better form of resignation.
But I agree that ultimately, it will be harsh, not gentle. My Texan friend & I do fear, American conservatism is turning into something that would immediately tell us we’re the wrong kind of people-
As for what I would do–in America white people do well, as a group, & blacks & Hispanics do significantly worse comparatively, & suffer awful crimes. Everyone seems to see this & the fact will not be left alone. It animates politics. That other minorities–Indians or Chinese or whoever else–do even better than whites seems not to be a political fact in the same way–almost no one brings it up.
It seems like the GOP is now the party of white people; the Dems the party of non-whites. There are numbers for these things & I am of course willing to make apologies if what I have stated is not true to the facts. I am told that a staggering majority of black voters & very large majority of what are called Hispanics, who are not exactly a race but nor are they a citizenship, vote Dem.
I suggest that it may be less catastrophic to think of the race divide as a class divide. In that case, think of yourself as the oligarchs. Think of them as the democrats. Propositions like Spengler’s show what I mean by a class distinction: Most of the people would have to be second-class citizens. The majority is the demos…
I believe Americans are even more fearful about talk of class than they are about talk of race. If I am right, I do not suppose I will change this in any way. I am also not opposed to the virtues of oligarchs.
How to prevent a reoccurrence? Here’s James MacGregor Burns on how to go about setting our constitution asunder:
Based on results, it appears that the leftist termites have eaten out so much of our Constitution’s framework that it is already imploding like a dynamited building. Albeit in glacial slow motion.
The Leftists have shown that the Anti-Federalists were correct about one thing: A SCOTUS packed with justices determined to revise our Constitution can transmogrify it into meaning anything they want over time.
So how to you make a constitution that is more resistant to Leftist infestation? One starting point is to rig the new Constitution such that we can keep Leftists off of the SCOTUS, but how do you put that constraint into text? I dunno.
I don’t agree with every proposed amendment in the Bill of Federalism. That said, most of its proposed amendments should be incorporated into our new Constitution.
We need an amendment prohibiting the Federal Govt from exercising racial preferences. This would cause the federal govt to be oblivious to “disparate impact” and prohibit affirmative action.
It shouldn’t be necessary, but we need an amendment deeming that men and women have different natures, physiques, etc. Afterward the Federal Govt should not be concerned if more men are in advanced STEM classes, that we don’t have female army rangers, women in combat, etc.
It shouldn’t be necessary, but we need an amendment specifying that a marriage is comprised of one man and one woman.
We need an amendment that denies regulatory agencies the power to issue rules with the force of law. Maybe require Congress to pass regulations proposed by these agencies.
I’m about to encounter my word limit. Final thoughts: roll back Lochner, add a right to Freedom of association and prohibit Chevron deference.
Kate, I’m not making any sort of moral case — of course widows’ benefits and welfare benefits are not morally equivalent. Rather, my proposal is about governance. Just as I can’t vote in Toyota’s shareholder meeting without owning shares, and just as I can’t vote in your church election without paying membership dues, the governance of a town or state or country should require voters to pay in first. Moreover, it is corrosive to how an organization is run when people who have an interest in larger disbursements have equal say to those who fund the disbursements.
In theory, one could write in exceptions for those (such as veterans) who give more than money. I hesitate to endorse that, though. That slope is mighty slippery, and I suspect it wouldn’t be long before teachers’ unions and public interest lawyers such as Michelle Obama insist that they, too, deserve public interest exceptions.
Irredeemable. Wanted the American Empire from the outset. Wanted to go into debt from the outset. The progenitor of the mercantilist economic system that has us in a death grip today. The granddaddy of “To Big To Fail.”
Doesn’t this require definitions of “modern, “regime,” “long,” and “well?”
Why? The Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted by a fledgling nation that had just defeated the greatest empire on earth.
Who said anything about collapsing?
War, like the poor, shall always be with us. Better to keep it as small and local as possible.
We’re asking about alternatives to America-as-dysfunctional-social-democracy. “Things are peachy as they are” isn’t one of the options. I’ve already said I’d go to Panama or Malta (Catholic countries, by the by).
The underlying issue: If one robs Peter to pay Paul, one can always count on Paul’s vote.
Paul should not be voting. The beneficiaries of redistribution should not be allowed to vote. Where redistribution is widely agreed to be a public good (e.g. widow pensions), then those who pay the bills can vote accordingly.
One way to attack the virus of creeping socialism is to formulate, advertise and promote Republican principles that become understood as the basis of Republican DNA. I am partial to the priority of the principle of ‘self rule’ or ‘self-determination’. It would seem to me that a powerful antidote or antibody to socialism is to argue:
“The wealthy should have the right to determine tax rates for their income bracket;”
that this right is merely a wider application of the right now effectively enjoyed by the majority middle class regarding its own rates.
It would seem that SoS’s commendable suggestion might be made a bit more palatable via the following means:
Establish two houses of Congress with one representing the ‘positive net contributor’ [sic] members of the polity, to provide them a kind of veto power over the excesses of the general public represented in the second house that may be highly dependent on, hence pre-disposed, to transfer payments, more regulation (also transferring wealth) and a burgeoning state to fixate on advancing ‘social welfare.
Both Jefferson and Madison warned us against abuse of the minority by majority, which seems to be happening today (0 Republican votes for Obamacare)
Following link discusses the “Tyranny of the Majority” well: ( “Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority’s rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority’s rights lose their meaning.”
http://www.democracyweb.org/node/36
I’d like to echo one sentiment that was expressed a few times here: If people don’t want to live in a Republic, nothing can make them. It applies both to a conscious decision not to live in a Republic or to an accumulation of denials that one’s misconduct still counts as Republicanism. No system of safeguards can protect it forever.
A follow up thought. It should be the Republican expressed goal: “the Government should satisfy Democrat wants (as much as possible)”. Granted, with the caveat that the Democrats not ‘use’ Republicans as instruments for doing so without the latter’s consent. But, we don’t ever say this. Why not? We have to explain to the Dems that we want this government to be for Them as much as it is for Us. As long as they appreciate the limits that puts on their just powers (just as, by reciprocity, it puts limits on Republican powers) – namely that Dems and Reps have different values. This necessarily means that laws must come in two flavors, there is no getting around it. For example, the Dems can keep their Obamacare, while the Reps go and buy healthcare on an entirely open market – with possibly some subsidy arrangement in place for those with parlous options.
The nauseating situation we find ourselves in today is that ALL politicians, of every stripe it seems, always couch their advocacy in these terms: “Americans want this…Americans want that…. etc.”, when really its only true that some (a limited majority of, sometimes even a minority of) Americans ‘want this or that”. That has to end. The ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ has to end…
America is not a corporation. Its job is not to make a profit. Its job is to protect and promote freedom and well-being for its citizens.
So why is money the standard that has to be met? Why is “pay in” only in coin rather than in kind? While I was a stay-at-home mother taking care of the four children of the state trooper, I was probably receiving more in benefits (mortgage exemption, say, and my half of my husband’s salary, plus all the other benefits of a free society) than I was paying in taxes (personally, zero). So neither my husband nor I would have been able to vote under this excellent scheme.
Fortunately, the nice gay couple (dentist/lawyer) up the street would have been able to vote, since they didn’t have kids and were undoubtedly paying more in taxes than they were receiving in benefits, especially if you didn’t have to count the benefit of having a police force to protect them (plus roads, bridges, public education for the children who would eventually grow up to be the people who grew their food, enforce their laws and change their diapers at the nursing home) I guess my late husband and I would just have to humbly trust in their noblesse oblige as we shuffled past the polls on elections day.
Why do I strongly suspect that both you, S of S, and iWe would be able to join my gay dentist and his husband in the voting booth under this proposal?
Actually, I was inclined to claim that they are. Or at least, they aren’t as dissimilar as one might like to imagine. Both involve transfers of money from the taxpayer to one who did not earn it.
I have to say, I admire Hamilton deeply, not least of all for what you call imperialism. I shudder to think what you’d’ve wished for Themistokles had Athens been your country. & yet without these men no country would have come to be or survived-
Well, you have to define definition, too, & being-
How sad that ‘the fledgling nation’, by your lights, should immediately cause its own long-term destruction! Too bad there was a Washington, I guess…
Small local wars are enough to destroy small localities. But there were great powers fighting in America, if you remember. How do you keep them out?
I don’t think things are peachy; I’m worried; but I do not think the end is coming soon. & I do not see a better beginning, wonderful as it would be. & I’d rather better understand how things were founded & could be founded…
Your major premise is false; We are not the people who formed the republic. We are the people who foolishly lost it.
It isn’t the form that matters, it is the people. Our republic was founded by a people who acknowledged their Creator, and knew that He was the Author of life. That is the foundation upon which everything rested. Unless we are again that people, educated in the thousands of years of civilization that went before us, and humbled by the greatness of our Creator, we are engaged in a vanity certain to fail.
We will do no better than to re-create the French republic.
“Your Founders were not the pious people you suggest they were. Maybe Adams. But Jefferson? Hamilton? Franklin? Washington?” — Titus Techera, below.
The founders were imperfect men who, nevertheless, acknowledged their Creator, and understood “Providence” as His character expressed towards man. Regardless of what they each believed, as expressed by their actions, they publicly expressed the truth of our founding.
Having read all 74 comments above, it is amazing that not one person considered the possibility of a living God, a Creator, engaged with a people who began a nation by acknowledging Him as our Source and Purpose.
Is God alive on Ricochet, other than as a theological argument?
Yup. On my bookshelf. O’Neill wrote that way back in ’77, and he reckoned it was feasible even then.