Constitution Change-Order
The founders of the United States, a group of nervy, anti-Colonialists, wrote the U.S. Constitution. There were arguments to be sure. But in making a government of the United States the founders tried to limit the ability of government to become abusive of the people. They did this by dividing government into four parts: the judiciary, the executive, the lower house and upper house.
They also wrote restrictions on the various parts of government. These restrictions, if followed by those who came later, would have kept government limited in size. Those who came later didn’t follow those restrictions and, as the quote from Nancy Pelosi about Constitutional authority shows, don’t care. From the Heritage Foundation website: “When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) was asked what provision of the Constitution authorized Congress to require all Americans to buy health insurance, she responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Her press spokesman followed up by saying, “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question.”
And so we see the leaders of government no longer care about Constitutional limits to their power. We thus come to the rule of man instead of the rule of law. The rule of man is one of the things the founders feared, as the rule of man is arbitrary according to his whims. A king or czar, or any single authority without constraint, exhibits the rule of man. Unfortunately, we see this in current legislation and the actions of various political leaders including President Obama. There are any number of problems associated with the rule of man, but lack of certainty about the future and the belief in one’s protection from individuals by the law are two.
Two changes to the Constitution would make this abuse more difficult. The first is requiring more than simple majority votes on legislation. An example of how this works is easily made using the county commission.
The Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners consists of nine members. Each may be elected by simple majority votes of their voting constituents. Upon election they may change laws with a simple majority vote of their nine members. So five people can change the tax laws of everyone in the county. If the ability to change tax laws was dependent upon a 75% majority, then seven members would have to vote in favor. This difference is enormous. A small minority would be able to stop the majority from changing, usually increasing, tax law. As it is, the majority has only to convince its party members, and occasionally one other, in order to condemn the taxpayers to higher taxes.
This problem is exacerbated by the two-party system of the DemoPublicans. While they both complain about the other side of their party, the fact is they both contribute to the irresponsible abuse of simple majority rule.
A further argument against simple majority rule has to do with abuse of minorities. In a simple majority vote, the minority may consist of 49% of the voters, people, taxpayers or representatives. Yet a simple majority vote becomes legally binding on the minority, as well as the majority. This may be true even if the minority holds very strong beliefs about the issue. This is not a good way to govern, as the relationship between the governed and their government should be one of mutual trust and respect. Pushing through legislation designed to help one’s favorites at the expense of those in opposition leads to dissent and distrust as well as a deserved feeling of being taken advantage of.
In requiring a 75% majority in legislation, the consideration of those in opposition would have to be taken into account, which would enhance their feeling of participation and worthiness. Another argument in favor is one of continuity.
When requiring super-majority votes, changes will not come easily and so people will believe laws affecting them will remain consistent for an extended period of time. This will be true of tax law and regulations, most important to the business community, but also to individuals as they make life decisions. In making it difficult to write new laws, it being difficult because more people would have to agree, the various legislative branches would not stay in session so long, thus our legislatures would heap less adversity on those they pretend to represent.
The other simple change to the Constitution would require that members of Congress, or any elected representative or member of the judiciary or executive branches, be held to abide by the same laws that they inflict upon the rest of society’s members. In excluding themselves, or writing special pay or retirements for themselves, Congress sets itself up as different or better than the rest of us. If this ability to exclude themselves from the harms they inflict upon all others is eliminated, perhaps they will do less harm and more good.
Simple structural changes will be opposed by those who benefit from the current system. But the current system harms those it pretends to represent. It is time for improvement.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=3356
