Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (24 comments) [269 views]


What should we make of the Michigan primary results?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 9:42 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [4 views]


Holy FrigginFreakinEFFIN Cow! Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump immunity claim!
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 2:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [37 views]


"Where's Hunter?" He is in the capitol building kicking Republican ass!
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 12:02 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (11 comments) [91 views]


The Doddering Old Fool's two serious problems coming out of Michigan
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 6:39 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [28 views]


Fake news? Are supposed voter concerns over Biden’s age overblown?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 11:20 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [20 views]


Mitch McConnell to step down from GOP leadership position in the
Government by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 9:42 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [34 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [44 views]


pb's prediction: Hunter Biden’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 27, 2024 7:49 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (18 comments) [235 views]


Pro-Palestinian advocates urge 'uncommitted' vote during Michigan presidential primary
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 26, 2024 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (7 comments) [77 views]


Opinion selectors, pages, etc.
The Constitution is not the problem with America today
By oldedude
October 18, 2022 12:53 pm
Category: Opinion

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

It has become fashionable among the extreme left to blame the U.S. Constitution for the country’s failure to adopt a progressive agenda. Progressives find fault with the Constitution because in certain instances its provisions prohibit simple majority rule: democracy. Such criticisms demonstrate a failure to understand the fundamental purpose of the Constitution and the context in which it was adopted.

The Constitution was never intended to usher in a pure democracy. In fact, its two most fundamental concerns were to create a central government stronger than that which had existed under the Articles of Confederation and, at the same time, to protect individual, God-given rights of — among others — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the potential for tyranny in this new, stronger central government.

The Founders were concerned that without some limitations, pure democracy could simply devolve into mob rule. It matters little whether an individual’s God-given rights are trampled by a dictator, an aristocracy, or a mob consisting of a majority of the people — the rights of the individual are still trampled regardless of the nature of the government that does the trampling.

As a result, rights of individuals are established in the Constitution and cannot be taken away by a simple majority wanting to do so. The government cannot amend the Constitution without the consent of supermajorities. And, importantly, the Constitution makes clear that the central government has only the rights specifically granted to it in the Constitution. In other words, the power of the central government cannot be increased without the support of various supermajorities to approve an amendment to the Constitution that would increase the power of the central government.

Far from being the problem that those on the left allege it to be, the Constitution and its non-democratic supermajority provisions provide strong protection against mob rule for individual rights, freedoms and liberties. The Constitution certainly can be amended — it has been, 27 times — but to do so requires consensus so that supermajorities can be convinced to support proposed amendments. Building this consensus necessarily involves compromise, which is precisely what the Founders had in mind.

Progressives simply need to accept the fact that their agenda cannot be adopted unless they get more votes. To get the votes they must compromise and convince their fellow citizens of the correctness of their position. This is called deliberation, and it is necessary under our system precisely because it prevents the worst excesses of a pure democracy/mob rule.

Those who seek changes, whether on the right or the left, should spend their time in deliberation and achieve consensus through compromise, rather than focusing their energies on changing — or, heaven forbid, eliminating — the U.S. Constitution.

An important political problem is the dominance of the two political parties, what the Founders would have called “factions.” Today, for various reasons such as closed primaries, social media, and cable TV, political parties have a greater ability to amplify extreme positions on both the right and the left. Worse, our dominant political parties have fomented a dangerous and dysfunctional level of vitriol, extremism and intolerance in our political discussions — such that true debate, deliberation and compromise is often impossible.

For example, if the support of a simple majority is not sufficient to make changes to the Constitution, then obviously a minority cannot change the Constitution either. We do not have “rule by the minority,” regardless of the left’s hyperbole. Such claims often center on the fact that representation in the Senate is not based on population and fail to understand the context in which the Constitution was adopted.

In the late 18th century, as now, there were states of various sizes and, in order to convince them to join the union under the terms of the Constitution, the smaller states wanted assurance that their concerns would not be overwhelmed by larger states that had more citizens and a larger number of votes. The compromise that was established created two houses of Congress. One, the House of Representatives, is responsive to simple majorities; the other, the Senate, is designed to provide equality of representation by state, regardless of population.

Why would smaller states ever have joined the union if doing so meant they would simply be ruled by the larger states? They had just thrown off the tyrannical English government under King George III and were not about to replace it with a different potential tyrant. When the states joined the union, they knew that these rules could be changed, but only pursuant to the amendment process involving supermajorities that is laid out in Article V.

George A. Nation III is a professor of law and business at Lehigh University. The views expressed here are his alone and not those of the university.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "The Constitution is not the problem with America today":

  1. by oldedude on October 18, 2022 3:06 pm
    So I absolutely agree with Isle. "We are at a pivotal moment in history" The sheep need to reread the Constitution. Of course, not whining would be good to. It doesn't do any good, and no one listens anyway.


  2. by Curt_Anderson on October 18, 2022 3:19 pm
    The Founders provided future generations with the means and methods to improve the Constitution. We address constitutional problems by passing amendments.

    The Constitution is not inviolable. It's not carved in stone like The Ten Commandments supposedly were. It is permissible to suggest changes and if they are popular enough, to codify those suggested changes as we done 27 times.

    Do you have a problem with that?


  3. by oldedude on October 18, 2022 4:40 pm
    No, I've said it many times. There is a way, as described in the article. It's just the sheep don't want to do that.


  4. by Curt_Anderson on October 18, 2022 4:56 pm
    True, like these damn sheeple:

    Sign the Petition to Call for a
    CONVENTION OF STATES
    I support the Convention of States Project; a national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.

    The Convention of States Project is first and foremost a movement of grassroots citizens who are fed up with business as usual in D.C. We’re funded by thousands of everyday patriots who have committed their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to protecting liberty for future generations.
    conventionofstates.com


  5. by Curt_Anderson on October 18, 2022 4:56 pm
    True, like these damn sheeple:

    Sign the Petition to Call for a
    CONVENTION OF STATES
    I support the Convention of States Project; a national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.

    The Convention of States Project is first and foremost a movement of grassroots citizens who are fed up with business as usual in D.C. We’re funded by thousands of everyday patriots who have committed their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to protecting liberty for future generations.
    conventionofstates.com


  6. by HatetheSwamp on October 18, 2022 5:15 pm

    Glenn Beck is a big fan of a Convention of States.

    The ratification of this Constitution was touch and go for a while. Framing a new Constitution and getting it ratified would be a challenge.


  7. by oldedude on October 18, 2022 7:12 pm
    It's interesting that each state will have to agree. OR they could succeed with the new constitution. Just think, CA having to actually listen to conservatives. and of course each state would have to vote on it first.

    Yes Curt, the sheep are not ready for this. It's easier to just burn cities down with congressional approval. That makes it okay.


Go To Top

Comment on: "The Constitution is not the problem with America today"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page