I'm beginning to think our Constitution is terribly flawed...

[kentuck]

In no way would the Founders have given the Executive the power of a King. Although some of the "Federalists" wanted George Washington to be King. Washington, in not so many words, told them to fuck off. So ended the urge for a monarchy in America. Or so we thought.

The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were quite flawed in their thinking. Not only did they not have a Judiciary, but they did not have any "rights" for the people. James Madison and a few others, known as the "anti-Federalists" insisted there be a "Bill of Rights" if there was to be a Constitution. Rather than lose the battle, Hamilton and the Federalists agreed.

They debated the power of the executive at long lengths. They gave the President the power as Commander in Chief over the Army and the Navy, as well as the state militias during time of war. Otherwise, the state militias were under the control of each Governor of each individual state.

However, with all their deliberations, they did not envision a person such as George W Bush. They believed that at all times the Executive would follow the will of the people. They believed that the conflict and deliberations and debate within the 3 branches of government would prevent any undue rushes to war. Boy, were they wrong!

I'm beginning to think we need some major revisions of the Constitution, maybe starting with the War Powers Act? Initially brought forth because of the discretions of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, it was only a matter of time before a tyrannical and deceitful leader would take advantage of the loopholes within the War Powers Resolution. The 30 days window of opportunity for the President can lead a weak Congress into approving more and more unwise funds to wars for fear of losing politically.

As Congress and the media-types debate the powers vested in the Presidency, Bush thumbs his nose at them and the American people. Majority opinion is meaningless. He will do as he pleases and he dares anyone to stop him. Although some will argue that is the perogative of a "strong" executive, still others see it as more a symptom of a weak and impotent Congress. I don't see any light at the end of this tunnel - unless it might be the train light coming straight at us?

[Hissyspit]

1. This article by Garret Epps from yesterday addresses just such issues:

"The Power of King George"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=107703&mesg_id=107703

I can PM you the entire text if you can't get onto Salon.

[kentuck]

2. Thanks!

I had not read that.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. they made it flexible enough to make it work for the times but, no one

could foresee Bush and Cheney. But, it wasn;'t all them. It could only be possible, the Bush/Cheney stuff, if congress gave up it power and oversight. If they let the executive run amok. We had the misfortune for 2 dangerous men in the WH along with a congress that allowed it to happen. If they did their jobs as they should have and were real legislators, no way could B&C get away with what they have.

[kentuck]

4. I think the reason for that is that we have lost our "free press"...

which is no longer the vigilant guardian of our liberites, but rather, just corporate suckups looking for handouts from the same bunch of criminals running the government.

[originalpckelly]

6. Actually, the problem is that no one is following the US Constitution...

the government outlined in that document is a government of limited powers. The whole Supreme Court is fucking the system, then the executive branch, and then finally the Congress got in on the act. It's all going to fucking pot.

We need to hold a constitutional convention and write a new one. I've been thinking about a new constitution for a little while now; ways to solve the problems of the current constitution.

[originalpckelly]

9. One of the main problems I see is the lack of accountability in the executive branch...

so what I would do is split up the chief executive authority, and give each state a chief executive of the federal government. They would elect a president, like a prime minister is elected by a parliament. At any time the President would be recallable. A President would serve a maximum of ten years (or eight alternatively.) There would be no popular elections for the Presidency, only popular elections for the federal governors. 1/5 of the governors would go up for re-election every year, so that the executive parliament would always represent the people's will, but would check the will of the people enough so that dramatic events wouldn't be able to widely sweep the executive parliament.

The two largest parties in the executive parliament (again made of the federal governors of each state) would choose a secretary from each of their parties, and the two would serve together. The opposition would have a minority bill of rights, so that in the executive branch their would be more deliberation.

[kentuck]

10. I like that idea...

at first glance, it appears to be an improvement over the present system with the electoral votes.

[Kagemusha]

5. I disagree about para #4

You say

"However, with all their deliberations, they did not envision a person such as George W Bush. They believed that at all times the Executive would follow the will of the people. They believed that the conflict and deliberations and debate within the 3 branches of government would prevent any undue rushes to war. Boy, were they wrong!"

Really? That at all times, this would be true? That's not the impression I get, and I'm not even a constitutional scholar.

My impression is that they presumed that either a) the People would revolt, or b) before that point, Congress, in its closeness to the People, would impeach the President.

[kentuck]

8. True, in that....

they believed the power was to be with the people. But not solely with the people, as in a "democracy". That's why they wanted a "republican" form of government with the powers divided, but still with the majority of the people. It's just not happening that way, in my opinion.

Of course, people revolting, such in Shay's Rebellion, was their argument for a standing army, also. It's fucking flawed!

[Kagemusha]

16. Yeah, it does get a bit circular.

The logic of nations is self-reinforcing when spouted by those who are privileged to rule them.

[Rex]

7. Washington cried and wondered how the men he fought side by side with

could learn nothing from the war they just fought. I think he understood how tragically stupid humans are.

[shadowknows69]

11. I've given this a lot of thought lately too kentuck

I think maybe some of our amendments need some tightening up or clarification. It needs to be easier to get rid of trash like Bush too.

[bridgit]

12. i'm beginning to think it's worthless when a junta of socio-pathetic traiters...

and war profiteers can run in there, lie round every tooth in their heads, and continue to do so without any resistance from whomever that piece of paper presumes to protect

[sutz12]

13. We don't need revisions to the Constitution...

We need to follow the one we have.

The War Powers Act is not part of the Constitution. It is simply a law passed by Congress. IMO it is pretty close to being un-Constitutional (actually I think it is over the line) and should probably be repealed. One aspect of it is the whole "gotta make a decision quickly" thing brought on by the modern era. But, it should not give the Pres carte blanche to invade foreign powers and start wars of convenience.

Johnson used it to escalate Vietnam and Bush is using it to legalize his Iraqi adventure. What is it about Texans? I'm with Bill Maher.....no more presidents from Texas. :)

[SaveElmer]

14. Not the first time the constitution has been under siege...

And probably not even the most severely...

There have been several severe tests of the constitution...

The Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams administration..the government summarily jailing op;position journalists and deporting foreigners without due process

Andre Jackson's tusles with COngress over the charter of the 2nd Bank of the U.S., and Jackson's then unprecedented use of the veto...Jackson was mocked as a king and a tyrant.

Nullification...the theory growing out of Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolves that individual states had the right to nullify federal laws it didn't agree with...nearly erupted in Civil War in the 1830's

The Civil War...

FDR's internment of Japanese Americans

Watergate

VietNam


In each of these cases the political system worked its way out of the problem...and that will happen here too...the 2006 election results are the first step...

[ben_meyers]

15. The only way to redo the Constitution

Is a constitutional convention. I would be very wary of that. Remember almost 60 million people voted for Bush in the last election. Those people would be represented also. Maybe the founding fathers didn't see Bush coming, but did they see FDR rounding up the Japanese during WW2, or the government declaring blacks to be 3/5 of a person? Do you think the 2nd amendment envisioned the weapons of today? Don't forget that the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution for mainly white, salve owning, landed gentry. Be real careful what you wish for.

[frogcycle]

18. not a "redo"

some laws granting excessive power to the executive need to be rolled back.

As to the Constitution itself, it COULD be that some additional checks and balances could be introduced via amendment. Perhaps some stronger role for the SCOTUS in overseeing legality of such things as signing statements without having to go all the way through the courts. Sort of an arbiter between Congress and Executive - although the SCOTUS has become so politicized I am not sure about the value of that either...

[johnaries]

17. Yes. the Constitution was flawed. The "Founding Fathers" knew it.

Which is why they made allowances to have it changed via "Amendments". The Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be a "Living Document" to use modern terms.

They hoped that as time went by the people of the US would become wiser by experience and amendment the Constitution to reflect the newfound wisdom.

Frankly, this is one of the reasons that I personally think the Constitution was the greatest governing document ever written at the time. the Founding Fathers realized that any governing document would always be flawed, and provisions must be made to try and improve on those flaws.

Yes, the Constitution is flawed and it recognizes that it is flawed. That is the greatest STRENGTH of the Constitution.

[Greyhound]

19. Definitely not perfect, but still revolutionary. The biggest flaw, IMO, is too

much concern for the protection and preservation of the ruling class and far too little for the people. Of course, nearly everybody involved in the process was of the ruling class, so it isn't too surprising.

[aquart]

20. It was intended to work slowly and with deliberation.

For a long time, I thought the British Parliament was a much better system which could far more easily remove an unacceptable (I'm being nice)leader.

Turns out, not.