Should The United States Rewrite its Constitution?

[Kal]

America is often attributed with having the first "modern" constitution (also called a democratic or enlightened constitution). There has been discussion by a small group of scholars and activists to hold a Second Constitutional Convention of the United States in an attempt to reform the Constitution. In any case, we would need thirty-eight states to be able to make any amendments to the constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

American citizens tend to take much pride in their constitution, and much of this pride is justifiable. However, the very fact that this constitution has been ratified twenty-seven times suggests that it may also be prudent to rewrite it altogether using modern vernacular and taking into account contemporary issues.

Lawrence Lessig proposes this reform because, as he claims, there is too much potential for corruption in Congress (in particular how a Congressman is influenced by funding for reelection).

But somebody at the convention said that "what if Congress is the problem -- what do we do then?" So they set up an alternative path... that states can call on Congress to call a Convention. The convention, then, proposes the amendments, and those amendments have to pass by three fourths of the states. So, either way, thirty eight states have to ratify an amendment, but the sources of those amendments are different. One is inside, one is outside.

He also remarks on copyright law (an issue he took all the way to the Supreme Court), and that is the most relevant issue to me:

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, and one particular power

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

has been heavily stretched by American corporations (Disney, the MPAA and RIAA, in particular). In my opinion, the original interpretation of this did not allow for any copyright law, because the word "Right" at the time the Constitution was written very strictly referred to "Natural Right," as opposed to a privilege. Copyright is surely a privilege. However, even interpreting it as allowing for the privilege of Copyright, it seems absurd that Congress can continue to extend the duration of Copyright, as this goes against the "limited Times" mentioned within the Copyright Clause. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that retroactively extending copyright duration was Constitutional.

Of course, this is inane. Extending copyright retroactively past a certain point obviously does not promote progress (and, in fact, good arguments have been made for why any sort of intellectual monopoly does exactly the opposite). It's also entirely possible for Congress to simply extend Copyright every time it is about to expire; in essence, it is making Copyright effectively indefinite in spite of the obvious Constitutional restriction.

This is one issue that is especially important to me personally, and I feel a Second Constitutional Convention would be useful in this regard. What opinions does The Proving Grounds have? Do you feel a Second Constitutional Convention is appropriate in order to rewrite the Constitution? If not, do you feel any parts of the Constitution should be amended in any way?

For those unfamiliar with the American Constitution, Wikipedia provides a good summary.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

No. I'm a traditional guy, but I acknowledge that things change and sometimes the constitution must be changed. However, it doesn't need a complete overhaul. The wording of our constitution bears much historical value, and I'd very much like to keep it that way.

 

[Kal]

Sure, but the historical value isn't lost with an overhaul, since the original document is not lost. But we certainly gain clarity and a sort of contemporary relevance with an overhaul of the document, don't you agree?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Given the education level (or lack thereof) to most people in the current generation, I can imagine a rewording of the current Constitution being helpful. I would also imagine it will help clarify and even patch up some of the loopholes (if any) that said document contains, but I'm no expert on the Constitution myself.

 

[Kal]

Ironically, that very lack of education makes it much harder for people to lobby for such a thing. To many Americans, rewriting the Constitution is similar to rewriting the Bible.

 

[Claire Diviner]

To many Americans, rewriting the Constitution is similar to rewriting the Bible.

Which is just as ironic as The Bible has been rewritten itself before. I don't think "rewriting" The Constitution is what we need, more than simplifying the words used in said Constitution to be more relevant to and easily understood by Americans today.

 

[Kal]

Yeah, but some of that requires interpreting the Constitution in the first place. For example, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, even if we interpret this literally (as the first "clause" not strictly being relevant to the clause on the right to bear arms), we have to interpret it for contemporary society in some way. Obviously, no one thinks the Second Amendment grants people the right to a tank, nuclear weapons, or weaponized anthrax. So what is considered an "arm" that we have a natural right to?

In other words, even merely simplifying the Constitution using modern English is going to require a "rewrite" in some way, because we are necessarily going to need to interpret some ambiguous or vague phrasing in the Constitution.

 

[Battlecow]

I'm still pissed that people don't use the KJB anymore (it's stylistically superior in nearly every respect and had an incalculable influence on Melville, Faulkner, and everyone else ever), so you know which side I'm coming down on here. Side note--What exactly do you mean by "rewritten," Claire?

But seriously, while I can see this being a sort-of-good idea in some respects from some points of view, the reasons you give are ridiculous. You don't like the way copyright law works and you don't like the way or the way corporate money effects the legislative branch and so your solution is to rewrite the entire constitution? I can see some new legislation governing campaign finance and I'd maybe, maybe go so far as to draft a new amendment reforming copyright law, but you have to understand that for people who aren't you, those issues are miniscule compared to the weight that the constitution has for them.

Hell, even on aesthetic grounds I wouldn't rewrite because of copyright law. A couple of dumb kids go to prison for pirating metallica or whatever and Americans get to keep one of the best-written civil documents ever enshrined as the central doctrine of their country? Sign me up.

You also have to understand that people want to live life by the same ideals and principles that governed their ancestors and predecessors, exactly. The founders weren't infallible, but I'd sooner depend on them and the tremendous body of interpretation available for their document than start over with no connection to precedent or ability to draw on existing constitutional scholarship.

 

[Kal]

But seriously, while I can see this being a sort-of-good idea in some respects from some points of view, the reasons you give are ridiculous. You don't like the way copyright law works and you don't like the way or the way corporate money effects the legislative branch and so your solution is to rewrite the entire constitution? I can see some new legislation governing campaign finance and I'd maybe, maybe go so far as to draft a new amendment reforming copyright law, but you have to understand that for people who aren't you, those issues are miniscule compared to the weight that the constitution has for them.

Just to clarify: the above two reasons are the most relevant to me for overhauling the Constitution, but I would not use that as an argument to convince others. As you mentioned, most people do not care much about Copyright Law. The Copyright issue is certainly more of a personal thing, and I agree that it won't convince most people (who are generally too ignorant of the actual harm caused by Copyright Law to care). However, I only wrote that a rewrite would be useful for reform. Simply amending the Constitution would be fine. Though it would still be necessary for the states to call a Convention simply because Congress would never propose an amendment to solve either of the issues mentioned.

I also do not hold any wide-eyed naivete for the Constitution; as far as I am concerned, it is just a document. And while it is certainly a beautifully written work and has had major influence on our country, it is still the least-modern "enlightened constitution," and there are still obvious issues with it.

Hell, even on aesthetic grounds I wouldn't rewrite because of copyright law. A couple of dumb kids go to prison for pirating metallica or whatever and Americans get to keep one of the best-written civil documents ever enshrined as the central doctrine of their country? Sign me up.

The negative influence of copyright is more than simply "pirates" going to prison. But that is probably more appropriate for a separate thread (I believe Alt-F4 has a lengthy thread discussing "Intellectual Property").

You also have to understand that people want to live life by the same ideals and principles that governed their ancestors and predecessors, exactly. The founders weren't infallible, but I'd sooner depend on them and the tremendous body of interpretation available for their document than start over with no connection to precedent or ability to draw on existing constitutional scholarship.

This is certainly a good point. You've addressed the issue from a sort of pragmatic point of view by answering that a Constitutional Convention with the intent of rewriting the Constitution would be inappropriate, and I certainly don't disagree. However, I was also hoping for input regarding what people would change about the Constitution. So, even if you are not in favor of an overhaul (an understandable position), I would still like to discuss what you would like to see amended.

 

[Battlecow]

I'd repeal the 21st and 3rd

especially the 3rd. **** the 3rd.

 

[Kal]

If the Third Amendment were repealed, I would join the Army and just start ****ing people's **** up. "No, excuse me, Ms. Zeta-Jones, but I can quarter myself whereever the **** I want."

 

[Battlecow]

OK I laughed pretty hard.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Side note--What exactly do you mean by "rewritten," Claire?

I mean exactly that. There have been different versions of the Bible, one version in particular being the King James Version. The wording on those are different, or so I hear. I don't have a source at the moment to confirm this, but I'll get back to you when it if I can get one, though that will probably be for another debate.

 

[Battlecow]

Wow, you're the perfect poster child for the decline of religious/biblical education in America.

I mean it's fine that you're not familiar with the bible (I'm assuming that you're not a christian), but understand that now you'll never be able to interact in a very significant way with many of the great works of art, literature, etc. that arise from Western Civilization prior to the second half of the twentieth century. And you're not the only one; even many Christians are probably ignorant enough to agree with you. This deserves its own topic but it would make me too sad.

 

[Kal]

Many Americans think the Bible is a single book brought down in English by The Lord. I think starting a topic on this would be good fun, Battlecow. You should do it.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Wow, you're the perfect poster child for the decline of religious/biblical education in America.

I mean it's fine that you're not familiar with the bible (I'm assuming that you're not a christian), but understand that now you'll never be able to interact in a very significant way with many of the great works of art, literature, etc. that arise from Western Civilization prior to the second half of the twentieth century.

Rather than trying to blindly insult someone, why don't you give examples to back up your condescending words. Though, do so in a separate debate.

 

[Battlecow]

I wasn't insulting you. I was lamenting the failure of America's educational system on the subject of biblical education, which you epitomize.

The King James Bible is a translation of Hebrew, Greek, and a very few Aramaic texts. These texts were set down as canonical by the Council of Nicea (called by the emperor Constantine) and while your claim that the bible has been "rewritten" is true in the sense that many biblical scholars believe the texts chosen in said council to have been changed or appended between their original writings and their canonization (for example, secular scholars are fairly confident that the gospel of Mark is the work of at least two authors decades or centuries apart). The other protestant bibles--the NIV, NRSV, ESV, etc.--use the exact same canonical texts, and thus are retranslations rather than rewritings. What Kal is proposing is not translating the constitution into idiomatic modern english while still holding the original as canonical (something that would provoke at most mild annoyance from a few snobs) but rewriting it entirely.

Edit: did a little additional research and apparently the bit about the Nicean council deciding which books were canonical isn't entirely accurate. I guess people just sort of eventually came to a decision about it. My point stands regardless, but I gotta not spread MISINFORMATION

 

[Theftz22]

I'd repeal the 21st and 3rd

especially the 3rd. **** the 3rd.

I'd get rid of the 11th first, and make the bill of rights apply to states so we can stop ****ing incorporating them one by one.

 

[Sucumbio]

Kal, what issue do you take with Disney specifically?

I just had a conversation about why they need their copyrights extended indefinitely (preservation of the brand Mickey Mouse being a key component in millions of people's lives - professionally and monetarily.)

I'm afraid my own opinion is incomplete so I'm just wanting to get more insight into your views on the subject, being as important to you as it is... if it were me, I'd rather there be no money and no property, but there's something about people and things and accumulating stuff and defending one's stuff, and yeah.

 

[Kal]

Well, ignoring all of the ridiculous racism in Disney films, the generation of "Disney Princesses" they helped to cultivate, and Home on the Range, the fact that they more-or-less bought the Sonny Bono Act is just absurd.

If you'd like, we can start a discussion regarding whether Disney should have its copyright extended indefinitely (though I will tell you with absolute certainty that they should not) on AltF4's thread in the Debate Hall, or we can create a new thread for it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Actually, yeah I like the first idea...

 

[Kal]

Well, I bought a book called Our Undemocratic Constitution by Sanford Levinson. It's been a good read so far, and is definitely the sort of argument I would put forward if I were interested in convincing others that the Constitution needs to be rewritten.