We need a new Constitution
The nation has changed since 1787. The founding document has to catch up.
By Larry J. Sabato October 10, 2007

If we really want to make progress and achieve greater fairness as a society, it is time for elemental change. And we should start by looking at the Constitution, with the goal of holding a new Constitutional Convention.

Sound radical? If so, then the founders were radicals. They would be amazed and disappointed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments that the founders could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, insisted that "no society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The Earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years" (the length of a generation in Jefferson's time).

The Constitution remains brilliant in its overall design and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation. These constitutional bits affect the daily life of the republic and every citizen in it. A few examples:

1. Restoring the war powers balance. The president should have the freedom to commit troops for up to six months, under procedures similar to that of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. But a new constitutional amendment should require that after six months -- and every six months thereafter -- both houses of Congress, by affirmative vote and without filibusters, would have to approve any extension. If one house votes no on extending, all combat troops must be withdrawn within a year.

2. Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation's people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states -- and thus the unfairness -- was far less.

3. Transforming presidential elections. Americans don't have to be convinced that our presidential election system is broken. The nation needs a sensible system of rotating regional primaries so that it would no longer be subject to the selfish whims of a few states.

The electoral college also must be overhauled, with more populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based electoral college isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if the 2000 Florida recount had to be conducted nationwide.

4. Ending second-class citizenship. The founders were concerned about foreign intrigue in the early days of an unsettled republic, so they limited the presidency to those who were "natural born" citizens. But the melting pot that is now the United States includes an astonishing 14.4 million Americans who were not born on U.S. soil and are therefore ineligible for the presidency. Any American who has been a citizen for at least 20 years should have the right to aspire to the White House.

I have barely scratched the surface in identifying long-delayed constitutional reforms. No thoughtful person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of work. But let the debate begin, and let us start the process that will lead to a 21st century Constitutional Convention.

Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country." He directs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
We need a new Constitution - Los Angeles Times

i think anchor babies should b abloshished if they are from illegals.

The beauty of our Constitution was that it did allow for change, not like it is constantly being done today, through the judiciary, but rather through the amendment process. Our Constitution was a work of beauty, it created an nation based upon an ideal, that all men were created equal.

Our nation is a republic, hence we have a Senate that provides for equal representation, and a House that provides for representation based upon population. The electoral college still works, why change something that is not broken???? Giving more power to larger more populous states would mean that a candidate could win the Presidency by carrying only 8 states. The current system gives votes according to population, electors equal to House members and to all states equally, electors equal to Senate members. This was done to ensure that small states had as much as a vested interest as did large states. The needs of the two differ, that is why the college still continues to work.

dmk

hell just froze over

I agree with sgt

WTF is an anchor baby?

Bullshit.
We're the smallest state - and NOBODY subsidizes us.

Different states have different numbers of electoral votes ... that's why some states are so important to the candidates

Out in California, we have a lot of electoral votes.

Bull what?

Infact CT isn't the smallest state by either size or population.

But it's a major subsidiser of smaller and poorer states, receiving just 69 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...e-20071009.pdf