Comments on: Do We Need A New Constitution?

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:02:43 +0000

The change I’d like to see is to allow non-geographic-governing entities a chance to enter the federal republic. In other words, let people form their own state-level governments, regardless of where in the US they live. If you get 600,000 people signed up (or whatever the number is), you get a Representative in Congress. You also set your own rules. We can choose our banks and our insurance companies, why not our government?

What about crimes and torts, when people in these self-selected governments are involved with people in the traditional geographically-based governments? The jurisdiction of the victim (or the plaintiff) would prevail. No harm caused = no case.

Just think if everyone who wants to vote for Ron Paul could actually get to live in a government presided over by him.

It’s time to think outside of lines on the map.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:34:10 +0000

Its called checks and balances…

Sabato sounds like the worst kind of socialist.

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:08:40 +0000

put beautifully!

By: Doh-San

Doh-San — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:54:30 +0000

“Because each state elects exactly two senators, thinly-peopled rural states wield disproportionate influence. If the 26 smallest ones stick together, they have a majority of votes despite representing only 17% of Americans. Mr Sabato wants to restore some fairness by giving extra senators to big states.”

If Mr. Sabato were half as clever as he’d like us all to believe, he’d realize that the House exists to do exactly what he wants the Senate to be modified to do.

By: Brian T. Traylor

Brian T. Traylor — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:36:01 +0000

It’s quite amusing to hear a politics professor bitch about how the Senate isn’t democratic. It was designed that way! The meddling of those damned progressives during the years leading up to WWI has done much to lead us down the road to serfdom. With the exception of the 19th, all of the “progressive amendments” only served to steer us off a path of prosperity.

I can’t imagine much of anything worse than a constitutional convention at this point in time.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:01:23 +0000

Sabato has been kicking this idea around for awhile now, I didn’t realize he’d written a book about it.

And Sabato should know better — his assertion that a Constitutional Convention could be limited in such a way as to keep the Bill of Rights from being touched completely ignores history. As Sabato should know, the 1787 Convention’s original charter was simply to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation —- even before it started Madison and the others knew that what they would really be doing is writing an entirely new charter of government.

A Constitutional Convention in today’s day and age would be nothing short of an unmitigated disaster for liberty.

By: Stephen Littau

Stephen Littau — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:36:41 +0000

If we follow the constitution we have, most of the problems we have will take care of themselves.

Great post Brad!

By: TanGeng

TanGeng — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:43:34 +0000

The asymmetrical representation in the House and the Senate does present a very interesting situation where the Senate often acts as a blockade and gatekeeper over the more unrestrained activities of the House of Representatives. It’s a wonderful (and perhaps unintended) outcome of the Connecticut compromise.

Perhaps the first step that needs to be taken is for the Congress to recognize the Constitution and abide by it before asking for a new document. Perhaps the executive should learn some restraint both abroad and at home. And perhaps the people would wise up and stop calling for government to help them when it can never effectively do so.