How to Rein In the Runaway Court

Many people have suggested amending the Constitution as a method of controlling the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). I disagree. Constitutional Amendments are difficult to pass. As SCOTUS has proven with its recent spate of rulings, the 5 Conservative Justices on the Court are capable of twisting Constitutional language to the benefit of the ruling one percent.

In Citizens United, SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people under the law and used that controversial assumption to gut federal election laws. Other decisions have been equally heinous. With each new decision, SCOTUS gives more rights to the richest one percent and strips everyone else of theirs. Amending the Constitution, even if possible, would take decades. There is another remedy available that would only take a congress and president that have a will to end judicial abuse.

Dictatorship does not need a single authoritarian ruler. Dictatorship can be established by a political class (like the Russian proletariat) or a religious group (like the English protestants under Cromwell). In our case, dictatorship has been instated by a court that has profoundly undemocratic and authoritarian beliefs. The Republicans have lost the Presidency and the Senate, but they have no need of those institutions if SCOTUS keeps on depriving us of our rights.

The Constitution says the judicial powers shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such others as Congress may establish from time to time. The Constitution did not create a court of nine members, or even one whose members hold their office for life. The wording of Article iii says nothing about how many justices should be on the Supreme Court, nor how they should be chosen.

President Franklin Roosevelt proposed to increase the number of Justices to 15. This could be done by a simple majority vote of Congress, with the President's signature. Fifteen Justices would be harder to co-opt than nine. More importantly, the addition of six new judges would break the grip now held by Conservatives set on establishing a theocratic plutocracy.

The Congress could do more. The Constitution says that federal judges should be life appointments, but does not specify that they must be organized into federal circuits and appeals courts. Federal Courts may just as easily be organized into a single body of judges who may at times be appointed to the Supreme Court and serve at other times in various other capacities.

This reform would have a beneficial effect on the speed at which cases are decided, since a larger Supreme Court could handle a heavier case load. A leveling of bureaucracy like this also tends to speed up cases because a case does not have to travel from one over-loaded court to another for years while plaintiffs continue to suffer and defendants continue to offend.

Such a reform is long overdue. We have suffered under the yoke of the wealthiest one percent long enough. The means of liberation is at hand. Let's use it.

Runaway Court: SCOTUS bends laws to suit its religious and political beliefs

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is only the latest in a series of SCOTUS verdicts that threaten the impartiality of our laws and our Constitutional system. With their ruling in this case, SCOTUS has picked a side and then tailored its verdict to favor that side. It is no coincidence that all 5 of the conservative Justices on the majority are Catholic. The Catholic church has for decades made its dogma on contraception known. Now SCOTUS has indicated that it agrees with the Pope. Contraception, it says, is wrong.

The owners of Hobby Lobby are not Catholic. Rather, they belong to a Christian sect that opposes all forms of contraception. Hobby Lobby claimed their objection to buying insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was based on their religious conviction that contraception is tantamount to abortion. SCOTUS, by its verdict in their favor, agrees with them. What is more to the point, five unelected Judges have made the religious beliefs of some Christians the law of the land.

Let me explain. Hobby Lobby claimed that 4 forms or birth control were offensive to their religious beliefs because these forms were actually abortions. Scientists disagree, explaining that in none of these cases was an embryo destroyed. But radical Christians have declared that human life begins at the moment of conception and therefore anything that interferes with the implantation of an embryo is an abortion. SCOTUS agrees with them, at least to the extent that the Court has declared these beliefs, although fallacious, must be respected. Therefore, Hobby Lobby does not need to carry health insurance that covers these forms of birth control.

The beliefs of the women whose health care bills may go up do not matter to SCOTUS. Their beliefs may be sincerely held, but they may still have to pay for their own medical care, because Hobby Lobby will not approve any form of contraception. Of course, when SCOTUS made the ruling, they said the employees would not suffer because Hobby Lobby only had to sign a form explaining their ethical position and return it to the government to escape their obligation.

On Monday, however, we learned that Hobby Lobby may not want to sign that simple form because Wheaton College has received special dispensation from SCOTUS because they claim that even signing a form is too great a burden for their consciences to contend with.

Signing a form is too great a burden. permitting an insurance company to make payments for contraceptives is too great a burden. SCOTUS only supports the Christian groups because the Justices making the ruling share their beliefs.

If anyone should deny that this is true, they should look at another ruling made by a Federal Court in Navajo v. US. In that case, Native Americans objected to drinking water contaminated by human waste because they sincerely believed it would cause "ghost disease". The Federal Court discounted the beliefs of Native Americans, even though the burden the government imposed was physical and real--the Natives Americans would have to drink water they believed was unclean and eat food that had been grown with irrigation from unclean water. The Court ruled this was not a burden for the Native Americans. But SCOTUS ruled that permitting another to make payments or being forced to sign a one-page form was too great a burden for Christians to bear. Judge for yourself whether this court does not favor one religion over another.

No doubt absolutist Christians are elated that SCOTUS has made their religion the law of the land. No one else should be happy about it.

Charles Koch spills his guts in WSJ Op-Ed

Charles Koch believes that everything he does is good. Other people are not to be trusted to make decisions that he disagrees with. He is the most conceited, self-righteous, and misguided person in the headlines today.

Koch makes several dubious claims in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. Koch claims he has spent his life studying the principles that enable people to improve their lives. This statement is demonstrably false. Koch has spent his entire life running a multi-national corporation. This occupation has left him little time for reflection.

Koch lists these principles as dignity, respect, equality before the law, and personal freedom. These are not the principles listed in our founding documents, where the authors discuss life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution includes a bill of rights that nowhere mentions dignity or respect. Those principles are too vague and ill-defined to serve as the cornerstone of any philosophy. Dignity is an attribute of authority. A judge has dignity, a king has dignity. Respect is a two-edged sword: Respect is earned as well as granted.

Koch lists equality before the law as a fundamental principle, but he has not spent his life donating to legal services for the poor, to ensure that everyone is equal before the law. He lists personal freedom as another fundamental principle, but he runs an organization, a corporation, which tells each employee exactly what he or she should do. Each corporate employee has a written job description that describes exactly what the corporation expects the employee to do for 40 hours a week. There's not much personal freedom there.

Furthermore, the corporation has unwritten rules that restrict personal freedom. The employees must obey all the edicts imposed on them by the executives of the company. They must never question authority, since insubordination is grounds for immediate dismissal. In many ways, a corporation limits the personal liberty of its employees, in the clothes they wear, in the language they use, and in the opinions they must hold about the company and its place in the world.

Koch apparently finds it acceptable to control his employees in this way, but believes that the elected government should never make any rules that affect its citizens. The citizens of a country vote to choose the government and the laws they wish to follow. The citizens of this country choose representatives to make those laws and enforce them. Koch's corporation is a dictatorship. One man makes all the decisions for everyone.

The worst thing that our current government does, according to Koch, is tell people how to run their lives. It does this because it does not trust them to run their own lives, he says. It is Koch who does not trust the people, however. He does not believe a government should rule with the consent of the governed. According to him, no one should have to obey any law he or she disagrees with. This is not a prescription for any real-world government, and it is certainly not a description of how Koch runs his company.

Koch's most egregious lie is when he pretends that his company cares about the environment. The company has won environmental awards, it is true, but these are awards for such things as keeping their oil tankers from leaking. They are not awards for fighting against global warming, because Koch does not acknowledge that greenhouse gases are a problem that has anything to do with him.

Koch is concerned about rearranging deck furniture while the ship is sinking. His refineries only release low levels of greenhouse gases, he says. His company has a fine safety record. He argued for the demise of the ethanol tax credit. But Koch industries is fighting to stop conversion of our energy grid to renewable energy.

Koch has no sympathy for the plight of people all over the world who find their homes threatened by rising sea levels, or watch their crops wither in the ever-hotter sun. Instead, he claims that he is not his brother's keeper. He takes no responsibility for his own actions. He spends vast sums of money to defeat politicians who might be tempted to listen to their constituents and limit the influence of undemocratic corporations.

Charles Koch is the face of evil in our world today.

Our Decrepit Constitution: When Congress Goes Wrong

In many ways, the US Constitution is like an operating system that tells a computer how to run. The Constitution tells the government how to run. Its task is far more important than an operating system, like Microsoft Windows. If Windows fails, it usually causes no more than a minor inconvenience. When the Constitution fails, it affects people's lives dramatically.

The Framers, the colonial Americans who wrote the Constitution, had some experience writing similar documents. Both James Madison and George Mason helped write the Virginia Constitution of 1776. The Framers understood how Constitutional law worked. They did not understand how Constitutional law could fail.

Software operating systems make the computer work. The authors frequently do not consider what will make the computer fail or how to escape from a failure. The Constitution shows the same kind of blindness. The Framers believed the government would work. They did not see how it could fail. They all belonged to a class of well-off gentry. Many in the South held large estates that were run by slaves. The northern framers were professionals—doctors and lawyers and businessmen. These men tended to think alike. All alike believed that they were the elite who should govern the new country.

The framers wrote a document that is particularly ill-suited for our country today. We have numerous contending classes. Each class believes it has a right to participate in government. In the past few years, the former ruling class has been pushed aside and its members are having difficulty accepting their new role. In 2012, Mitt Romney, whose father ran for president in 1960, believed that he would win because he belonged to the governing class.

The governing class, composed primarily of white males, has grown accustomed to receiving preference, in political office, in jobs, in salary, and in a whole host of other ways. This class is recipient of many government programs, including the farm subsidies that go almost exclusively to them. The class never received food stamp benefits, which accounts for its support for the former and hostility to the latter.

The old ruling class viewed the election of Barack Obama as symbolic of their loss of prestige and power. They regarded the presidency as rightfully theirs. The class considered anything that was not traditional—such as African-Americans owning homes and receiving medical care—as a threat to them. For these people, conservatism means preserving their status and prerogatives.

For the ruling class, conservatism also means moral prerogatives. They vehemently oppose legalization of abortion, legalization of marijuana, and gay rights. They see the laws governing these things as the end products of moral struggles that they fought hard to win. They are appalled to watch their America fade away.

But the old America is fading away, and faster than anyone predicted a few years ago. The Republican party has become the party of old, white men. The younger generation today grew up in an integrated society. The young are much more in touch with what is going on throughout the world, and the world is coming to our doorstep.

Past waves of immigrants took at least a generation before they integrated into white American society. The society of those days forced them to conform through discrimination and a tightly knit ruling class. The ruling class is faltering. The new Americans are demanding their rights even before they become citizens. Groups of Americans who never participated in politics before are learning that their votes make a difference.

What we are watching is the last flare-up of a dying system and the birth of a new one. Birth pangs are always painful. Let us hope most of our troubles are behind us.

SCOTUS consults dictionary to see if voter suppression is constitutional

Most people would consider the case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona to be about the outrageous attempt by Arizona Republicans to deny the vote to Arizonans of Latino heritage. Not so Justice Scalia, who sees the case as an opportunity to discuss the dictionary meaning of the word, “accept”. Here we have the epitome of a narrow ruling, where the Court does not address the important issues in a case, instead discussing recondite matters of word meanings and reading the commentaries on election law in the Federalist.

Justice Scalia notes that James Madison, the slaveholding contributor to the Federalist, believed the federal government should not set its own requirements considering who should be allowed to vote. To do so, wrote Madison, would by degrees subvert the Constitution. Madison's overriding concern here was that non-slaveholding states would pass laws permitting African-Americans to vote. This was the reason for the Constitution's limitation in this area.

The people no longer believe there should a right to hold slaves. Therefore, the Court should give no weight whatsoever to any comments written by 18th century slaveholders on whether the federal government should determine voter qualifications. The Fourteenth Amendment took this power away from the states by declaring

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Arizona's voter registration requirement, passed in 2004, is just such a law. It erects barriers between voters and the ballot box. Studies have shown that 90% of the voters refused registration under the law were legally eligible to vote. The law crippled voter registration drives, which target first-time voters and voters newly arrived in the state.

The white supremacists who passed this law in Arizona got the results they wanted. The groups most affected by tougher registration rules are young, first-time voters, minorities, and the elderly. An objective evaluation of the effects of this law must bring it into conflict with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voting practices or procedures which discriminate on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity.

Once again we are faced with a situation where the laws are being violated by a small group of people who wield political power. These are the only people who could rectify the injustices they themselves are causing. Any other group that challenges these laws would require years of appeals and large sums of money.

We should not imagine that the conservatives on the court are colorblind. Justice Scalia knows that the framers had the same world view as slaveholders of that time, because they were in fact slaveholders. He personally favors rules that would exclude eligible voters from the rules, because his written opinion tells the supremacists of Arizona that they could make a similar law if they only followed his guidelines. They may, he writes,

request anew that the EAC[Election Assistance Committee] include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Those who want to suppress the vote of minorities should thank Justice Scalia for his helpful advice. None of the Justices mentioned that the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and that no law that prevents even one qualified voter from casting his vote should ever be ruled constitutional by this Court. 

Our Decrepit Constitution: Defanging the Senate

The Framers designed the Senate as a stronghold for prominent men. John Adams wrote that all members of the government should be gentlemen, which he defined as friends and connections of the well-born and educated. In those days, prominent men took pride in their erudition. We know what books Thomas Jefferson had in his library because he donated the entire collection to the Library of Congress after the War of 1812. Jefferson was an American patriot, but no isolationist. His library included an extensive collection of Greek and Latin classics, books in modern European Languages like French and Italian, and a broad selection of subjects from astronomy to poetry. He likely would have laughed at the idea, commonly espoused by today's Supreme Court, that only American laws should be consulted.

Adams himself wrote 10 volumes of scholarly books, primarily on government and law. He was both a scholar and an author, as well as a statesman. He believed in the superiority of the natural aristocracy. Adams believed the aristocracy were the only men who should be allowed to govern the new country. He and other framers believed that democracy was dangerous. He favored not a democracy but a republic which he defined as a government run by representatives of the people, not the people themselves.

The Senate was one of the measures taken by the framers to keep government firmly in the hands of the gentlemen. The framers assumed that fewer members in the Senate would make the positions more highly sought after. Originally, the Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures, rather than elected by the people directly. This method of appointment was thought to add even more assurance that only the best men would be elected to the senate. Senators were to serve for six years. This qualification insulated senators from pressure by the people they were supposed to represent. The framers believed senators should represent the votes of the people, not their opinions.

From the beginning, the Senate was a place where a few men could block progress, the inevitable change brought about by the passage of time. Progress happens primarily because people are changeable. New ideas arise for the popular mind to accept or reject as it sees fit. The framers assured that the public would learn new ideas when they guaranteed freedom of speech and religion. They tried to slow progress by omitting the liberal ideals expounded in the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution. The Constitution did not consider all men equal, at birth or at any other time. It consigns Africans to slavery and the original inhabitants to annihilation by making no reference to the rights of indiginous peoples.

During the first 60 years of its existence, the primary function of the Senate was to prevent any anti-slavery laws from passing. It did this by creating gridlock in the government. Each state had two senators, regardless of its population. The pro-slavery states assured that one slave-holding state would be admitted to the union for each new free state. This tactic meant that the number of pro-slavery senators always matched the number of anti-slavery senators. The admission of California as a free state in 1850 doomed the senate deadlock system and led to the Civil War.

The Senate remained a place where a minority faction could block the will of the majority. The Senate was still the bastion of elitism it had always been. During the twentieth century, the Senate opposed internationalism, preferring a protectionist system that they felt favored the wealthy banking and merchant classes in the U.S. The Senate used its veto power over treaties to wreck the League of Nations. President Wilson intended for the League to prevent major wars by creating a forum where the great powers could talk to each other instead of shooting at each other. Without the cooperation of the U.S., the League failed to prevent the next catastrophic war. The Senate still had more damage to inflict on the world, however, by committing the U.S. to a policy of isolationism. In that isolationism, Nazi Germany arose and grew until it was almost capable of taking over Europe. During the 1950s, the Senate used its filibuster power to block civil rights laws, once again delaying inevitable progress.

After the election of Barack Obama, the Senate used its filibuster power to halt most of the president's fiscal programs. This led to a prolonged recession and suffering for millions of Americans. The Senate, representing the wealthy elite, was not affected by the suffering it inflicted on others. By this time, the U.S. government had delayed facing numerous problems, including drug violence, massive incarceration of its minority populations, two disastrous wars, an enormous and expensive military, the collapse of the middle class, violence in its cities, and a country divided against itself to as great an extent as it had been in the 1850s.

The Framers modeled the Senate after the English House of Lords. The House of Lords performed the same function as the U.S. Senate, that is, rejecting legislation aimed at taxing the wealthy and aiding the poor. The British system was not crippled by a Constitution like ours, however, and in 1911 the Parliament passed a law removing most of the power of the House of Lords to reject or delay laws.

The U.S. Senate was certainly as much a hindrance to progress as the House of Lords. In the 20th century, the Senate kept the executive branch from forming critical alliances, enacting treaties that meant the difference between war and peace, and enacting legislation that provided equal rights to African Americans. In the 21st centure, the Senate became even more obstructive, blocking or delaying numerous judicial nominations and refusing to fund agencies that favored the middle class over Wall Street millionaires and corporate executives.

The addition of another layer of checks allotted to the wealthy class in the form of a powerful Senate is a drag on the government at a critical time in our history. After passage of the National Initiative Amendment, the people should pass initiatives that severely limit the power of the Senate as it is currently defined in the Constitution. The number of Senators should be increased by 100 at-large seats, elected by popular vote nationwide. This will increase the influence of larger states like New York and California, while making each Senator less powerful.

An amendment should pass that limits the ability of the Senate to delay a bill by more than 3 months. If the Senate refuses to accept a treaty negotiated by the executive within 6 months, the treaty will automatically be ratified. These reforms should defang the Senators and turn the Senate into a debating club for the wealthy. Its fangs will be removed.

Our Decrepit Constitution: Its Secret Meaning

Our Decrepit Constitution: Its Secret Meaning

The Framers of the Constitution came from the English tradition of common law. Under common law, laws are not written but deduced from similar court cases. An important concept in common law is stare decisis, which requires the court to follow tradition, so that if a court decides a case a certain way, it will be bound by its own prior decision.

A problem arises when a court, especially the Supreme Court, is not bound by its prior decisions. The Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), rejected previously settled law by overturning the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court. The majority of the Court decided that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to interpret Florida election law. This contravened the judgment in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which ruled, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Republican majority of the court thus overruled a decision that had stood for nearly 200 years to elect the presidential candidate of their party.

The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. FEC, overturned 100 years of precedent upholding the Tillman Act (1907) which limited corporate contributions to political campaigns. In doing so, the Court found that the campaign finance law violated the First Amendment, something which was not mentioned in the original claim. The Court thus gave itself authority to rule a law unconstitutional without having a representative case brought to its attention. The Court's failure to abide by its own earlier decisions struck a blow against the means by which the law does not change erratically but in a principled and intelligible fashion.

The result of these rulings was a critical wound to public confidence in the Supreme Court in particular and the law itself in general. State legislatures have begun passing bills that obviously contradict Supreme Court decisions and Constitutional Amendments. The Kansas legislature yesterday passed a bill that defines life as beginning at fertilization and bans abortion based on fetal gender altogether. These provisions of the new bill patently violate the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973). Several other states have passed similar laws limiting the availability of abortion. All of these laws presume that the Supreme Court will overturn a ruling it made 40 years ago. The Court will do this not because of any change in technology or public sentiment, but simply because it does not agree with the earlier decision.

Another provision of the Kansas bill prohibits Planned Parenthood from teaching sex education in the public schools. Supporters of such laws do not claim that Planned Parenthood gives false information in their classes. State Rep. Bette Grande (R-Fargo) introduced a similar bill in North Dakota. Rep. Grande said that Planned Parenthood was not part of the way business was conducted in her state.

This state of affairs has been brought about by the Supreme Court's attempt to set itself up as the supreme branch of government, which may at any time decide to strike down reasonable laws made by legislatures or decisions made by other courts for the simple reason that this court, for obvious political reasons, disagrees with them. The Courts decisions may be described as obviously political because observers can predict which way individual justices will rule based on their political affiliation alone.

The situation resembled the state of affairs in Japan before the issuance of its constitution in 1868. The Japanese lords made legal decisions without consulting precedent or legal codes because there were none. Japanese subjects had to obey the lords because there was no appeal from an arbitrary or unjust decision. The Supreme Court seeks to institute just such a government, where laws are not made by the people, but by Supreme Court Justices, who, like the prophets of the Old Testament, reveal the secret meaning of the Constitution.

Our Decrepit Constitution: Welcome to the Future

Our Decrepit Constitution: Welcome to the Future

The Framers were intelligent, perhaps even brilliant men. But they were not clairvoyant. They could not see into the future. They designed a government for the times they lived in, assuming that all future times would be similar.

The pace of change quickened abruptly after 1860. The Civil War accelerated the building of railroads, which in turn led to increased production from steam power. The industrial revolution brought great wealth but also brought poverty, dangerous working conditions, and child labor. The Framers could not imagine either the problems themselves, or their scale. European governments, where industry was well-established by 1860, created a safety net for victims of disclocation and unemployment. Germany passed the first unemployment and social security laws in 1889, 36 years before the U.S. passed theirs.

American thinkers have played important roles in the establishment of human rights and international institutions. Woodrow Wilson helped establish the League of Nations in 1919. The United Nations based its human rights proclamations on a speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wherein he defined the four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear. The Framers recognized the importance of the first two freedoms. They did not mention the others in their Constitution.

The United Nations wrote treaties guaranteeing the four freedoms after World War II. These treaties are known to many Americans as the Geneva Accords. The United States Congress refused to ratify many of these treaties. The current Senate refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea, a treaty that formalizes traditional laws concerning the use of the oceans and their protection. The Supreme Court does not accept many international treaties as binding on the U.S. court system. U.S. Presidents have ignored the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war and torture.

The U.S. Bill of Rights needs to be extended to protect foreign nationals from ill-conceived and dangerous military adventurism, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and interventions in Nicaragua, Honduras, and Chile. The Constitution should incorporate the International Bill of Rights, so there is no question whether U.S. Courts should recognize the rights of women, children, and the poor.

Justice Scalia claims that the Supreme Court cannot ask whether a person is guilty of a crime, only whether his trial met the bare minimum standards of due process. Likewise, Scalia claims that the Court cannot look at the reality of discrimination and voter suppression, it can only consider whether Constitutional standards are being met. Scalia challenges his critics to find a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, although the Tenth Amendment reserves any rights not mentioned in the Constitution to the States or the People. Scalia accepts the concept of implied powers because it suits him but refuses to accept the concept of implied rights because it does not.

This ability to pick and choose which concepts to accept and which to reject is exactly what the Framers had in mind when writing the Constitution. They wanted the privileged minority to make choices for the people as a whole. The Framers assumed that these gentlemen would make better decisions than the majority of the people. After two hundred years of experiments, we now know that this opinion is false. Democracy works.

Our Decrepit Constitution: Fighting the Corporations

Our Decrepit Constitution: Fighting the Corporations

Recent incidents of gun violence are still fresh is the minds of residents of the states of Colorado and Connecticut. Those states have passed strict gun control regulations. Ninety per cent of the population agree that more gun control regulations are necessary, yet the congress is incapable of action. It seems incredible, but it happens because our laws are not democratic.

Senators and Representatives are elected by constituents. Their constituents exercise only indirect influence over their elected representatives. Constituents only vote every 2 years for Congressmen, or 6 years for Senators. The Constitution permits lobbyists to give money to our lawmakers every day. These sums of money are sometimes very large, but politicians need large sums of money to run for office. Just as important, they must avoid ever offending those groups who might give them large sums of money. If politicians offend those groups, their opponents in the next election may receive support from those same groups.

The only politician directly elected by the people (discounting for a moment the anachronous electoral college) is the President. The Constitution surrounds the president with restraints, however. He cannot make laws. He cannot raise taxes. He cannot dissolve Congress and rule by himself, as monarchs used to do. He cannot schedule new elections when Congress refuses to pass his proposals.

All the president can do is talk, and try to persuade the congress to support his proposals. Since political decisions are influenced by money, not ethics, he cannot exercise moral suasion. The presidency, in some respects, is the worst job in the world. Although the president has very little power to influence anything, he is blamed for everything that goes wrong. The president typically begins his term as a popular advocate for change, and ends it as a despised failure. The fault is not his. The fault is inherent in the Constitutional system.

The Framers created a federal system out of necessity. They did not trust a strong government that could become a tyranny, so they created a system that had three checks on the federal government: the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Courts. This system worked so long as there were no entities strong enough to defy the president.

Stronger entities soon emerged. The first was the faction of slave-holding states. These states eventually attacked the United States directly by forming the Confederacy. The Civil War nearly destroyed the Union and made it impossible for successive entities seeking power to use violence to succeed. The costs of civil war were recognized as unsupportable.

Other entities seeking power did evolve. These entities used money to buy influence in the Congress and the Courts. Giant corporations formed whose influence dwarfed the influence of the president. The government struck back, first by passing anti-trust laws to keep the corporations small enough to control.

Progressives at the state level passed laws to control corporate power within their borders. Progressives passed initiative and referendum laws because the only power strong enough to combat the corporations resides in the people themselves. These new laws controlled the corporations to some degree. California was able to control the Southern Pacific Corporation (SP), which had flourished through government subsidies. SP was a local entity that could be controlled through local (state) laws. Other states set up Utility Commissions under various names to control corporations and protect the people from monopolistic utitlity rates.

These efforts proved successful for awhile. Corporations continued to grow larger, however. The common people were severely weakened by the Great Depression, while the corporations and the people who ran them prospered. World War II brought the beginnings of great prosperity to the corporate elite. The Korean War ushered in an era of massive spending on military weapons. The development of atomic weapons caused unprecedented amounts of money to be spent on technology. This level of spending continued until the end of the Cold War, in 1989. Corporations receiving government subsidies for research and contracts for technology could not ship jobs oversease because weapons series were considered too dangerous to trust to foreigners.

This situation changed abruptly with the advent of consumer electronics products like radios, televisions, and audio equipment. These products used the same technological advances that were funded by the U.S. Government for rockets, guidance systems, and the space program. Corporations began saving money by shipping jobs overseas. Silicon chip manufacturing, a thriving business in Silicon Valley in 1969, was moved to Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, and eventually China. Instead of creating employment opportunities in the U.S., corporations fed money into the economies of other countries.

President Reagan led the assault on American unions when he fired striking air traffic control workers. Workers at Atari in San Jose threatened to unionize. In response, the corporate management closed down the San Jose plant and moved their jobs overseas.

Gradually, job opportunities for U.S. workers dwindled. The gap between the common people and the well-off widened. The Supreme Court thwarted attempts to damp the influence of money in electoral politics. The Republicans began suppressing the votes of African-Americans, Latinos, students, and the elderly. Republican governors rolled back hard-won abortion rights.

The U.S. looks more like a third-world country all the time. In those countries, the wealthy few rule the numerous poor. The common people have no chance to redress grievances because they have no power. In other words, there is no democracy.

The U.S. Constitution is badly in need of repair. It needs amendments to establish a right of privacy between a woman and her doctor; to curb the ability of wealthy corporations to buy elections; to prevent politicians from cashing in with legal bribery, otherwise called campaign contributions; to stop publishers from exploiting the work of authors and musicians; to stop corporations from buying up disused patents and using them to blackmail legitimate innovators; to stop gun dealers from supplying criminals with death-dealing weapons; to stop energy companies from destroying the environment.

The list goes on and on. There are far too many potential amendments ever to reach the end, especially when every one of them will be fought with skill backed by money. There is only one solution to this problem. The people must adopt a national initiative which would give them what they never had, a true democracy.

The National Initiative amendment would do just that. All groups advocating a constitutional amendment should join together and support this one. Once this amendment passes, all further amendments will have a much lower bar to pass: They will be passed by a majority of the American people.

Our Decrepit Constitution: The Courts

Our Decrepit Constitution: The Courts

The executive branch quickly found ways to circumvent the rigid language of the new Constitution. Alexander Hamilton revealed that the federal government had implied powers not enumerated by the Constitution itself. Hamilton determined that among these implied powers was the ability to form a corporation, if the government found that it needed a corporation to fulfill its Constitutional duties. These implied powers exist in the interstices between the clauses explicitly granting powers to the government. According to Hamilton and his followers, the government did not need to follow the precise dictates of the Constitution, but could take actions that it felt were merely implied by the document.

The Framers themselves did not agree on such and important right as the right to free speech granted in the First Amendment. John Adams's administration passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) which gave the administration the power to imprison and deport opponents to the policies of the president. Adams proposed these laws to attack the French during the Quasi War. Adams did not consider the law unconstitutional because the U.S. was fighting an enemy. Just ten years after the constitution was adopted, the president demanded extra-legal powers during wartime.

The Framers failed to recognize the importance of corporations in commerce and manufacture, since corporations were small and few. The Framers did not make any rules governing corporations or protecting citizens from injuries that corporations might cause. Injuries inflicted by corporations have had extensive repercussions in the country and these injuries have seldom been corrected by law. Fortunes made by manipulation of stock or monopolization have remained the property of the men who committed the crimes. Corporations that cause massive dislocation in unemployment and property devaluation seldom pay any penalty for their actions. The Constitution does not enumerate the powers and rights that might be granted to corporations that are different from those granted to individuals. The bill of rights for corporations is lacking.

The framers did not make allowances for a standing army. They instead decided to rely on militias, guaranteeing that people could keep and bear arms in the second amendment. Militias proved incapable of defending the country, however. The weakness of militias was proven in the revolutionary war, when militias broke ranks and ran from British regular soldiers at the Battle of Camden. Camden resulted in 1000 casualties and 1000 prisoners taken by British.

More evidence of the unreliability of militias followed. In response to the need for security, the federal government has built a huge arms industry around its military forces. Neither the forces, nor the industry were foreseen by the Framers. The Constitution should contain guidelines for government oversight of the military and rules for the regulation of the arms industry, which has become a potent force for military aggression and congressional corruption. The Second Amendment should have been repealed after militias ceased to be relevant to the defense of the nation, but instead has continued in force to the detriment of law enforcement and the security of the population.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. That definition was not clear in the decades after ratification. Chief Justice John Marshall acquitted Burr of treason on the grounds that Burr had committed no overt act, as required by the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson disagreed.

Other clauses deserve amplification. The Intellectual Property clause has been captured by the publishing industry as if it had been written to provide them a perpetual monopoly. The clause was too vague even at the time it was written, since there was already a specific idea of what a law governing patents and copyrights should look like. The Framers wanted to assure there could be laws written governing copyright and patent. They did not assure that those laws could not be abused in the future. On the contrary, the lack of specificity in this clause made its exploitation by corporations inevitatble. Corporations exist to make a profit. Monopolies are the surest source of profit, so every corporation seeks to become a monopoly. The Intellectual Property clause in the constitution apotheosizes an issue where debate is sorely needed. Corporations hav taken advantage of Intellectual Property being blessed by the constitution to act against the best interests of the country.

Here again, the Framers were more concerned with the rights of property owners (publishers and industrialists) than with those who toil with their hands (writers and inventors). They therefore left the terms of the law open for the property-owners to fill in as they see fit. The current intellectual property complex, like the military industrial complex, is a side effect of the Constitution. While the Constitution has created these profitable entities, it gives no guidance on regulating them.

The checks and balances imposed by the Constitution are all intended to thwart the will of the majority, which Madison called the majority faction. The bicameral legislature sets up a smaller, more prestigious Senate which is intended to represent minority interests of property owners and the elite. The U.S. Senate has evolved into the kind of body the Framers intended. It is filled with rich, famous, and powerful people. The Senate provides a strong check to the lower house, which tends to be more representative of the common people, although its members are also well-off.

The presidency has veto power over the legislature, providing another check on the power of the majority. The judiciary provides yet another check.

The judiciary has always been a politicized body, since John Marshall imposed his federalist views on Republican administrations. Bush v. Gore, Dredd Scott, and Citizens United were all highly polarized decisions decided along party lines. The Supreme Court was acting in these cases as the last line of defense against a majority faction. The Court is thus a legislative body in itself, the third legislative body set up by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the least democratic of the legislative bodies. Its nine unelected members serve life terms. Even the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church is more democratic because it has more members so more viewpoints may be represented.

John Marshall has been praised for establishing the Supreme Court as a respected body. In the last 30 years, the court has lost a great deal of its prestige. The Court has handed down politically charged decisions like Citizens United, Bush v. Gore and Jones v. Clinton. Important decisions are made along strict party lines. The Framers envisioned the Supreme Court as a neutral body where decisions would be made by respected jurists after careful deliberation. Instead we see a court where decisions are made with no deliberation at all. Opinions have become mere formalities tacked tacked onto decisions made by political hacks. Jurists are chosen for the court, not in recognition of their legal stature, but by their ability to hew the party line and by their youth. Politicians who wish to control the court far into the future pick young judges to help them perpetuate a political philosophy. These judges are too young to have distinguished for their wisdom or scholarship, but the political parties are looking for people who will follow their leaders. This practice is reminiscent of the Soviet aparatchiks, functionaries who never made a move without checking first with their political leaders.

Large corporations grow stale. They become unable to adopt new methods of business, even when adopting new methods is the only thing that can save the company. The constitution is an example of an outmoded way of doing business. The U.S. needs to change its way of doing business if it wants to survive.

Our Decrepit Constituion: Protecting Vested Interests

Our Decrepit Constituion: Protecting Vested Interests

Our present constitution is an experiment. Our previous governing document, the Articles of Confederation was seen as a failure because it had severe and incurable problems. The Articles created a loosely allied group of states. There was no central authority, no president, and no way to resolve disputes between the states. The Articles led to trade and taxation disputes between the states and outbreaks of violence.

A group of citizens led by Daniel Shays took up arms against the government of Massachusetts. The federal government lacked the military power to put down the insurrection, so the state's wealthier citizens formed a private militia to do the job. The state government easily suppressed the rebellion, which had been inspired by taxation and austerity policies. Washington considered the rebellion an awful presage of things to come, but was happy that the state had been able to control it so quickly.

Shays's Rebellion had at its root the difference between the well-off and the poor. At that time, the currency was worthless and the small farmers in rural Massachusetts had nothing with which to pay taxes. They had to watch as banks foreclosed on their property. They also resented the money from taxes being transferred to wealthy financiers. Massachusetts resolved the problem by discounting its debt.

Jefferson, with his typical laissez-faire philosophy, considered Shays's Rebellion a good thing, a means to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. George Washington and James Madison considered the uprising a sign that a stronger central government was needed, one that had the ability to raise revenues and support a professional army. They took steps in the new Constitution to strengthen the federal government and to increase its ability to levy taxes and maintain a standing army.

The adoption of a new Constitution did not prevent armed uprisings, however. The Whiskey Rebellion was a revolt against excise taxes proposed by Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary under President Washington. Once again poor farmers revolted against paying taxes when they had no paper money, only produce. Washington led a sizable militia force into western Pennsylvania to put down the revolt. The revolt evaporated before any military engagements occurred.

Fries's Uprising in 1799 was caused once again by taxation issues. The poor farmers of western Pennsylvania objected to the imposition of a property tax. Farmers in slave states could apply this tax to their slaves. Slaves could be sold to get cash, but property could not. While the newly strengthened federal government was able to suppress the insurrection, President John Adams drew criticism for his handling of the crisis, while Albert Gallatin, by acting as a calming force, gained prominence among the anti-federalists.

All three of these rebellions were popular uprisings against the wealthy financiers who held war-debt from the revolutionary war. Hamilton's excise taxes transferred money from the poor farmers in the west to the wealthy bankers in the east. Madison referred to these uprisings as excesses of democracy. He and his allies designed the Constitution to assure that the faction of the majority (I.e., the poor) could not dominate the faction of the minority (I.e., the wealthy).

The Constitution protects the wealthy minority from the poor majority by a system of checks and balances. The Framers explained these features as intended to prevent tyranny or anarchy. John Adams gives the Long Parliament as an example of a single-house legislature that led to tyranny. While John Adams was a well-read, well-traveled man, his conclusions do not take into account changing times and circumstances. The Long Parliament may have led to tyranny, but it started out as a reaction to tyranny of the British king. It failed to hold regular elections, which Thomas Paine suggests as a counterweight to tyranny. Adams discounts this argument entirely. Yet we know today that there are many single-house legislatures that have not devolved into tyranny or anarchy, the British House of Commons foremost among them. Whatever arguments may have been accepted at the time of the framing have now been refuted by subsequent events.

The British Parliament found a way to neutralize its obstructive House of Lords because it has no written constitution and hence has more freedom to change its customs to respond to changing circumstances. The American Constitution has no such ability. In evolutionary terms, the American Constitution has proven itself unable to evolve and has set itself on the path to extinction.

Our Decrepit Constitution: Electoral College and The Civil War

Electoral College

Americans credit the men who wrote the Constitution—the framers--with great wisdom and foresight. Supreme Court Justices have started a cult that worships the Constitution as a perfect document. They pore over its text and the opinions of its creators as though they were religious texts and revelations of the true word. Some also claim that the framers were inspired by God, usually by a Christian fundamentalist God.

None of these beliefs is true. The framers were neither godlike nor exceptionally wise. The document is not based on religious ideas. The Constitution is deeply flawed and becomes more so with each passing year. The framers made it hard to change. Amendments require passage by both houses of congress with a two thirds majority, then ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures. Most amendments also specify that they must be ratified within seven years.

The framers have recently been considered by some the infallible source for American law. This assumption implies that they were always right, at least about law and government. This assumption was very far from the truth.

The framers invented the electoral college, ostensibly to prevent the voters from making a mistake when electing a president. Instead, it was the electoral college that made the mistake, in 1800, when it gave the same number of electoral votes to both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House of Representatives elected the president that year. The Constitution created a crisis where none existed.

The framers decided that each state should have only two senators. This compromise gave more power to the less populous states at the expense of the states with larger populations. In 1787 the most populous state, Virginia, had 20 times the population of the smallest, Delaware. In 2010, the most populous state, California, had 65 times the population of the smallest, Wyoming.

History tells us that states vote in regional blocs, with relative size having little to do with their decisions. Neighboring states New York (a large state) and Rhode Island (a small state), for example, voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections. Neighboring states Louisiana(small) and Texas(large) voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections as well. Louisiana and Rhode Island, both small states, voted for different candidates in all seven elections.

Since small states no longer vote in a bloc, if they ever did, the election of two senators from each state, regardless of population, does not serve the purpose intended by the framers. Instead of balancing the interests of different sized states, California's two senators represent a disenfranchisement of 36 million voters in relationship with Wyoming. The framers may have been right in 1787, but their judgment on this matter, at least reflected by presidential choices, is wrong today.

The framers made no provision for political parties in their Constitution. This oversight has become a serious problem in recent years. The British Parliamentary System recognizes that there will always be more than one party. The leader of the majorityThis arrangement gives the leader of parliament, the prime minister, the ability to govern if he can unite his own party behind his platform, a relatively easy proposition, given that all members of his party stood for election on the same platform.

The American system divides government between political parties. This division makes legislation more difficult to pass and slows down the process of government. James Madison argued that representative democracy rather than direct democracy because he claimed that direct democracy gave rise to factions. Madison defined a faction as a group of citizens united in some passion or common interest against the interest of others. He singled out the factions that arise from inequality of wealth and argued that a representative democracy would protect the minority from the majority.

Madison believed the best way to guard against factions was to create a representative democracy. Direct democracies, he claimed, always failed within a short time. The difficulty that arises here, which is a major difficulty with all opinions expressed by the framers, is that these conclusions are drawn on examples with almost no data. The number of direct democracies documented by history in Madison's day was precisely one, the direct democracy of Athens during the fifth century BCE. Any argument based on such limited data must be questioned.

It is pointless to argue whether Madison's theories on factions or democracy were correct. Like the philosophers he admired, Madison argued using only pure examples to illustrate his ideas. Madison argued that representative democracy had advantages over direct democracy but failed to recognize that no pure direct democracy has ever existed nor ever could exist. The representative democracy created by the Constitution has over the years become more democratic, through the direct election of Senators in the federal government and the addition of democratic ideas such as initiative and referendum in the individual states.

The Civil War

Madison considered that factions of the majority were dangerous to a nation, not those of the minority. He had in mind the faction of the poor, which is always greater than the faction of the rich. Madison's Constitution intended to guard against majority factions and guard minorities. This presumption, that only majority factions are dangerous, has been disproved by history. Several crises in American history have arisen because of minority factions, primarily because the wealthy have been successful in seizing and holding the reins of power in precisely the manner which the framers sought to prevent. The rise of a tyrant, which Justice Scalia claims that the Constitution has prevented, has never been a problem in America. What has been a great problem, and remains a problem today, is the accumulation of vast riches by a small class of people, who use their wealth to seize and retain power.

Scholars often speak of a Constitutional crisis as being a political problem that cannot be resolved easily by the Constitution. Examples of such crises were the election of 1800, when Jefferson was elected president by the House of Representatives; the election of 1876, when Benjamin Harrison became president with fewer popular votes; and the Watergate scandal that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon.

The most serious crises in American history did not arise from a failure of the framers to foresee an event. Instead, they were caused by the framers' express intent. Despite Madison's concerns, there have been no factions of the majority. Instead, three crises in American history have been caused by factions of the minority, who were not poor but wealthy. The Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Great Recession were caused by flaws in the Constitution.

The framers needed to gain the support of slave holders. They inserted several pro-slavery features into the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution defined a slave as worth three fifths of a person. This article strips African Americans of their rights as humans. African Americans not only submit to the lash, they must also give their votes to their masters, who were free to vote, again and again, to keep them in perpetual servitude. This article continued in force for seventy-six years. It contributed to the widespread belief that African Americans were racially inferior and reinforced the conviction in the Southern states that their actions were legal and just.

Article II, Section 1 establishes the electoral college for the election of the president. The slave-holders were concerned that their slaves, once freed, would take control of state government from them. They saw the electoral college as a means to permit a small group of voters to thwart the will of the majority. This worked in actuality. Only 1.3% of the population cast their votes in the first presidential election. Virginia had the most electors, thanks to its large number of slaves. The first president was George Washington, a prominent Virginian and a slave-holder. The second president was John Adams, from Massachusetts. Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were all Virginians and slave holders. Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was also a slave-holder from a slave state.

These early slave-holders held the presidency until 1836. At that time, slave-holders from southern states had held the presidency for 40 of the previous 48 years. They used their tenure to promote slavery at home and abroad. They appointed southerners to the Supreme Court with lifetime tenure. These supreme court justices tried to perpetuate slavery and spread it to the northern states.

The US Supreme Court ruled, in Dred Scott decision(1857), that a slave who lived in a free state was still a slave. All six southern justices voted with the majority. Northern opponents of slavery feared that this decision meant southern slave-holding states could export slaves to the north. The decision heightened tensions that led to the Civil War breaking out in 1861. Although the Supreme Court did not cause the Civil War, Dred Scott showed how much influence the southern states had gained through the electoral college and the pro-slavery compromise within it.

Our Decrepit Constitution: 2. The Framework

Americans credit the men who wrote the Constitution—the framers--with great wisdom and foresight. Supreme Court Justices have started a cult that worships the Constitution as a perfect document. They pore over its text and the opinions of its creators as though they were religious texts and revelations of the true word. Some also claim that the framers were inspired by God, usually by a Christian fundamentalist God.

None of these beliefs is true. The framers were neither godlike nor exceptionally wise. The document is not based on religious ideas. The Constitution is deeply flawed and becomes more so with each passing year. The framers made it hard to change. Amendments require passage by both houses of congress with a two thirds majority, then ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures. Most amendments also specify that they must be ratified within seven years.

The framers have recently been considered by some the infallible source for American law. This assumption implies that they were always right, at least about law and government. This assumption was very far from the truth.

The framers invented the electoral college, ostensibly to prevent the voters from making a mistake when electing a president. Instead, it was the electoral college that made the mistake, in 1800, when it gave the same number of electoral votes to both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House of Representatives elected the president that year. The Constitution created a crisis where none existed.

The framers decided that each state should have only two senators. This compromise gave more power to the less populous states at the expense of the states with larger populations. In 1787 the most populous state, Virginia, had 20 times the population of the smallest, Delaware. In 2010, the most populous state, California, had 65 times the population of the smallest, Wyoming.

History tells us that states vote in regional blocs, with relative size having little to do with their decisions. Neighboring states New York (a large state) and Rhode Island (a small state), for example, voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections. Neighboring states Louisiana(small) and Texas(large) voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections as well. Louisiana and Rhode Island, both small states, voted for different candidates in all seven elections.

Since small states no longer vote in a bloc--if they ever did--the election of two senators from each state, regardless of population, does not serve the purpose intended by the framers. Instead of balancing the interests of different sized states, California's two senators represent a disenfranchisement of 36 million voters in relationship with Wyoming. The framers may have been right in 1787, but their judgment on this matter, at least reflected by presidential choices, is wrong today.

The framers made no provision for political parties in their Constitution. This oversight has become a serious problem in recent years. The British Parliamentary System recognizes that there will always be more than one party. The leader of the majorityThis arrangement gives the leader of parliament, the prime minister, the ability to govern if he can unite his own party behind his platform, a relatively easy proposition, given that all members of his party stood for election on the same platform.

The American system divides government between political parties. This division makes legislation more difficult to pass and slows down the process of government. James Madison argued that representative democracy rather than direct democracy because he claimed that direct democracy gave rise to factions. Madison defined a faction as a group of citizens united in some passion or common interest against the interest of others. He singled out the factions that arise from inequality of wealth and argued that a representative democracy would protect the minority from the majority.

Madison believed the best way to guard against factions was to create a representative democracy. Direct democracies, he claimed, always failed within a short time. The difficulty that arises here, which is a major difficulty with all opinions expressed by the framers, is that these conclusions are drawn on examples with almost no data. The number of direct democracies documented by history in Madison's day was precisely one, the direct democracy of Athens during the fifth century BCE. Any argument based on such limited data must be questioned.

Our Decrepit Constitution: 1. Bill of Rights

The framers of the U.S. Constitution cobbled together a document that described a possible government for the thirteen original colonies. All of the framers who signed the constitution understood that it is not a perfect document. It is a compromise. The Senate is composed of two delegates from each state as a compromise to appease the smaller states. This principle, adopted by the California State Constitution for its State Senate, was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), when Earl Warren wrote that legislatures represent people, not trees or acres. The U.S. Constitution, 48 years later, still supports the notion that U. S. Senators represent trees, not people.

The Constitution limited eligible voters to white male property owners. The property owners could also cast votes on behalf of their slaves, each of which was set equal to 3 fifths of a white man. Seventy-six years later, the Fourteenth Amendment gave to African-Americans the right to vote. Fifty-five years after that, the Nineteenth Amendment extended the franchise to women. Yet modern textualist jurists insist that we should interpret the words of the Constitution exactly as the framers meant them. This is nonsense. The framers were parochial thinkers in a backward country, still threatened by larger neighbors and Native American tribes. They were hardly the repositories of all wisdom that modern conservatives imagine them to be, nor did they believe that of themselves. Their experience did not include much of what today informs our thinking about human rights, science, and philosophy.

Some of the framers might be included in the group of thinkers who epitomize world wisdom on the subjects of politics and government, but not all. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay authored the Federalist Papers. Other signers of the Constitution are less well known as thinkers. Later thinkers would also be included in the prestigious group, like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, to name only a few Americans. The international list would be much longer and would include a number of non-Americans who influenced the framers, including Locke and Montesquieu.

Americans in general, not just conservatives, believe that the Constitution is a semi-divine document. It gives us foolproof rules for governance. It protects our rights. We believe this despite the numerous constitutional crises that have occurred over the years.

Constitutional Crises

The first constitutional crisis involved the manner prescribed by the Constitution for the election of the president. This crisis occurred in 1800, when opponents of Thomas Jefferson tried to have Aaron Burr declared president. Burr was the vice presidential candidate, but the Constitution failed to recognize that the Vice President and the President would usually have the same number of electoral votes and that this fact could be exploited by politicians. The election of 1800, only the third presidential election held under rules established by the Constitution, was decided by the House of Representatives instead of the electors.

The nation has a severe problem. The Republicans have kept their promise never to raise taxes, but they lowered taxes and made vast appropriations for two wars without raising the funds to pay for them. No one likes high taxes, but the government needs money to pay for the programs that voters have approved and that business and the poor may rely on. The Constitution, which makes it impossible to pass laws without compromise, compounds the problem. The Republicans will not compromise on their political positions. They have made a constitutional crisis into a government crisis for which no one has found an answer.

Despite evidence to the contrary, many people, including members of the courts, consider that the Constitution is perfect or nearly so. All we need to do is tweak it from time to time. But the document itself forbids change. The Constitution is 224 years old this year. It is a creaking vessel taking in water at every joint. It was designed to slow the pace of change. Recently it has succeeded so well that it seems to be turning time backward to a time when only property owners had rights, minorities were enslaved, women had no vote, and only one culture was accepted and protected by the government.

The Supreme Court determined the outcome of the presidential election of 2000. The election in Florida was indecisive. Both sides claimed victory. A series of actions by the Florida state legislature and courts were appealed to the Supreme Court, which made its decision along strict party lines. Nothing in the Constitution gives the authority to decide elections to the Supreme Court, but nothing in the document prevents them from doing so.

Our leaders and thinkers spend a great deal of time thinking about how to make the Constitution work, just as medieval thinkers exhausted their energies trying to imagine God and his plan. The thinkers who followed medieval times created a government ruled by a document, just as the Church was ruled by the Bible. The study of the Constitution has become as sterile and fruitless as the theological studies of the Middle Ages. We need to stop wasting time fantasizing about what the framers intended and start thinking about how to put our country back on track.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment was intended to guarantee the rights of individuals to speak out against the abuses of government. From the very beginning, these rights were challenged by the government, which passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The Supreme Court never invalidated the Alien and Sedition Acts, although the Acts specifically banned freedom to criticize the government. The government used the Acts to imprison a Congressman, John Lyon, for writing a letter critical of President Adams and other similar acts. The Constitution did not protect Lyon's rights.

More recently, the supreme court has ruled that people with large sums of money have a right to drown out the voices of the majority. A small group of plutocrats spent hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012 to elect candidates to office. They did not succeed in getting the presidency, but they did succeed in many other races and they retained control of the House of Representatives. The framers envisioned a representative democracy. The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as giving inordinate power to a small group of wealthy people. The government has almost ceased to be a democratic republic and is close to becoming a plutocracy.

The plutocrats have taken advantage of the Supreme Court's ruling by financing propaganda. They use vast fortunes to buy advertisements on television, radio, and in print. They buy their own newspapers, radio stations, and television networks. The newspapers and networks created numerous scandals that were damaging to their political opponents.

The First Amendment protects people's right to tell lies, but it does nothing to protect people from the damage done by lying, legally called defamation. The laws against defamation in the U.S. are too weak to prevent elections being altered by lies. In 2004, a group of wealthy Republicans spent millions of dollars to convince the public that John Kerry had lied about his war record. The Kerry campaign had no way to stop the lies being broadcast continuously for weeks. The First Amendment protected the defamers and engineered Kerry's defeat.

Rupert Murdoch has subverted the press by buying Fox News Channel and turning it into a non-stop propaganda networkfor the Republican party. The wealthy publishers, Disney and Warner and their peers, still have this freedom. The rest of us do not. The copyright law makes an exception for fair use, meaning that you or I can use copyrighted material without paying for it under circumstances. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) took the right of fair use away from anyone posting to social network sites on the internet. The DMCA determines that a copyright holder can demand that a publisher, such as Facebook or YouTube, must immediately remove any material from its website or face severe fines. This removes the concept of fair use from copyright law, since Facebook or YouTube will not protect your fair use right and risk large fines. The Congress has taken away your right to due process, since the material must be removed immediately. You can appeal, and may win, but lawyers cost money and trials take time. If fair use must be won it court it is not safe to publish anything that may be contested.

It may appear contradictory that laws against defamation are too weak to prevent intentional lying but copyright laws are not strong enough to protect the right to fair use of copyrighted materials. The parties favored by the two laws have a great deal in common, however. They have plenty of money to defend themselves from charges of defamation or to attack people they accuse of violating copyrights.

The First Amendment forbids the congress making any law respecting the establishment of any religion. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. This law, by defining marriage exclusively as a right of heterosexuals, adopted the religious views of part of the population and incorporated those views into federal law. The First Amendment did not prevent this from happening and could not help people who suffered from its effects. In 2012 the Supreme Court appears ready to annul the law, only sixteen years after its passage. The constitutional system appears to work, but only after time and money have been expended to fight this law. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Second Amendment

Its supporters, including members of the supreme court, ardently believe that the second amendment guarantees every U.S. Citizen the right to own a gun. The actual wording of the amendment does not appear to support this belief:

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.

The form of this amendment is a logical inference, meaning that if and only if the first part of the sentence is true, then the second part will also be true. Therefore, if a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed by federal law. In some cases, where firearms cause danger to the people, then arms must be regulated to protect the public safety.

Justices of the Supreme Court who wish to return the country to the supposed golden age of the 18th century have ceased to analyze the actual meaning of the Constitution. They instead have developed complicated systems to infer that the framers, or at least the society of the late eighteenth century, believed that the right to bear arms should exist independent of any militia. This is hardly plausible, since the framers showed themselves to be fearful of the masses in numerous aspects of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is obsolete. It guarantees citizens the right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. This amendment passed before the U.S. had a standing army. Many of the framers, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed a standing army or navy. They intended to defend the country from England or France, then world superpowers, with a volunteer army whose soldiers kept their own guns.

During the Civil War militias were called out by the governors of the southern states to serve as the nucleus for an army of rebellion. In response to this abuse by the states, the Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard under the dual control of the states and the federal government. The Militia Act gave the President the authority to place the state militia under the authority of the Army, thus effectively preventing their use for purposes of insurrection. Yet second amendment supporters continue to threaten rebellion.

The Second Amendment continues in force long after it has outlived its original purpose. Today it causes more harm than good by providing a legal excuse for the sale of deadly weapons to civilians. Twelve thousand people die from gunshot wounds in the U.S. every year. The Second Amendment, intended to protect the United States against invading armies, now contributes to needless slaughter of our citizens.

The politicized Supreme Court ruled in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to own a firearm, regardless of his membership in a militia. In this ruling, the majority of the Court continued its identification with the Republican Party by ignoring the legislative history of militias after 1789. Their ruling would have been correct in 1789, in a frontier country where everyone was required to bring a musket with them when they were called up.

A musket is a single-shot weapon that takes up to a minute to reload. The bullet must be inserted into the barrel of the musket, then tamped into place with a steel rod. A person must practice long hours to reload quickly and aim the gun properly. He will find great difficulty hitting a moving target, especially one that tries to get away. Most minutemen were not great marksmen, nor were they capable of coordinating their shot

It is not 1789 any longer. Our hand-held weapons can fire 50 or 100 shots in minutes without reloading. Gun sales advocates frequently argue that murderers will find other weapons if guns are not available. These advocates cite the genocide in Rwanda where 500,000 people were killed with machetes. The massacres there occurred over 100 days and involved up to 500,000 attackers. By contrast, a single individual with an automatic rifle killed 20 children, along with the 6 adults that tried to protect them, in less than an hour. Had the shooter been armed with a knife, it is likely that no children would have died, as there were adults on site who tried to disarm the shooter.

President Obama has recently announced several initiatives on gun control. He announced, as do all other politicians making public statements in support of gun control, that he is a firm supporter of the second amendment. Gun control laws protect the American people from the dire consequences of the second amendment. Its repeal would save thousands of lives annually.

Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act was the first law that subverted the terms of the fourth amendment. Section 215 of the Act made it possible for investigators to demand that a suspect turn over tangible things so long as these things are needed for an authorized investigation. The investigators no longer need to show probable cause, or even reasonable grounds, that the person under investigation is engaged in criminal activity.

In 2002 President Bush signed an executive order authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless wiretapping of thousands of American citizens without a court order. At about the same time, the NSA began working on a top-secret project called Stellar Wind, that would collect millions of documents, phone calls, and digital transactions and store them in a massive facility in Bluffdale, Utah. These digital records were collected from law-abiding American citizens without warrants.

The Fourth Amendment did not stop the President from authorizing warrantless searches, nor did it stop the Congress from passing legislation that apparently violates the constitutional provision against unlawful search.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The framers put their faith in independent, reasonable jurors. A grand jury today seldom decides cases against the advice of the prosecutor who convened the jury. The prop of an independent grand jury has been removed, although the independence of jurors may always have been illusory.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has held that the Constitution does not prevent the execution of a defendant who has been convicted by a full and fair trial and later convinces a habeas court that he is innocent. This is true. The Fifth Amendment states that a person may not be deprived of life without due process of law. It does not prevent a state from manufacturing evidence against a defendant. The Supreme Court, following Scalia, considers only the careful observance of procedure, not flaws in the process itself, or the prejudice of the people. Troy Davis, whose case Scalia was commenting on, was executed by the state of Georgia despite efforts of numerous individuals and organizations to secure a review on the basis on recanted testimony..

The framers erroneously assumed that state governments would take care not to convict innocent persons. Instead, according to the NAACP and Amnesty International, states have shown a propensity to convict African-Americans for crimes regardless of their guilt or innocence. Since 1973 over 140 persons have been released from death row where they had been confined as a result of due process. The defendants were not protected by the Fifth Amendement, but because of a post-trial actions, such as the discovery of DNA evidence.

An unjustly convicted person should not expect a reprieve from the Supreme Court, where Scalia refused to consider Davis's case, calling it a fool's errand and a sure loser.

Due process starts with the presumption of innocence. Without that presumption, the accused is presumed guilty until he clears himself. The reasonable doubt is then given to the prosecution. Without that coin to throw onto the scales of justice, a defendant has little chance to escape punishment.

The Fifth amendment explicitly prevents the state from forcing a defendant to testify against himself. This clause was intended to prevent the use of torture in criminal trials, where it was still used in the eighteenth century. The Bush Administration, wishing to use torture against captured terrorists, simply disregarded the Fifth Amendment. John Woo, a lawyer appointed by the president, wrote an opinion that justified the use of torture. His opinion was used by the CIA to justify their treatment of enemy combatants.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Eighth Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. The state of Alabama impressed prisoners into chain gangs and forced them to toil in the hot sun without concern for their health or safety. Chain gang members who became angry at their treatment vented their anger on the men who were chained next to them and could not escape their attacks. Prison wardens rounded up African Americans on fictitious charges to supply their customers, who profited from this form of slave labor. The institution of the chain gang was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court as cruel and unusual in 1910. Despite this ruling, Alabama and Arizona once again began using chain gangs in the 1990s until the Supreme Court outlawed the practice again in 1996.

As a form of discipline, Alabama prison authorities chained prisoners to a high railing and forced them to stand for hours, a practice decried as torture by the United Nations. The Federal Court indicated (Gates v. Collier 501 F.2d 1291 (1974)) that this practice in Mississippi constituted cruel and unusual punishment as early as 1974. The prison system of the state of Alabama was still using this form of punishment in 1995. The Supreme Court definitively declared this practice unconstitutional in 2002 (Hope v. Pelzer 536 U.S. 730 (2002)). This indicates the prisons in Alabama continued inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on inmates for at least 21 years after the courts ruled such practices unconstitutional.

Justice Thomas (Hudson v. McMillian (1992)) argued that such treatment did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it was not part of a judgment. Thomas apparently believes that the treatment of prisoners, once they are sentenced and incarcerated, is of no concern to the Supreme Court. This opinion comports with the views of eighteenth century politicians, who did not intend the eighth amendment to apply to prisoners; it has no place in the present day, more than 50 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) declared that no one shall be subjected to cruel or inhuman punishment.

In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered independent prosecutor John Durham to investigate whether the CIA had used any unauthorized.interrogation tactics in the years following 9/11. Durham discovered that the CIA had destroyed 92 video recordings of interrogations, but Holder concluded that most of the subjects had never been in CIA custody. Holder thereupon closed the remaining two investigations in 2012. If these were not interrogations by the CIA, then they may have been interrogations conducted by extraordinary renditions.

Holder's opinion, hence the Obama administration's opinion, is thus that whatever happens to a prisoner of war once he is handed over to a third party cannot be blamed on the American CIA officer who handed him into hostile hands.This reluctance to prosecute Americans under the terms of the Geneva Conventions may explain why the Obama administration has not sought indictments against the politicians who planned and executed the Iraq War. The laws of the United States do not apply to non-citizens; the Eighth Amendment is not broad enough to provide protection to foreign prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions apply equally to all nationalities, but these rules are not recognized as law in American courts, partly because of reservations made by the Americans when the accords were adopted, and partly because American courts do not recognize international law as binding.

The Constitution is Dead

Our statutes don’t morph. They don’t change meaning from age to age to comport with whatever the zeitgeist thinks appropriate. When you read Chaucer, you try to figure out what the words meant when they were put down on paper. It’s the same thing with the law. --Justice Antonin Scalia

Scalia is correct when he says the Constitution is dead. Abraham Lincoln, who loved the Constitution well, declared in his inaugural address that

no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions.

But the Supreme Court under the leadership of Justice Scalia is currently engaged in a project to change all our laws to comport with what the framers of our Constitution believed. When he is asked whether a new law is constitutional, Scalia goes directly to the text of the document. If he finds that the Constitution agrees with this new law, he approves the law. If he finds otherwise, he declares the law unconstitutional and throws it out.

Scalia is an expert interpreter of laws, but he is no literary critic. Otherwise, he would understand that every critic reads Chaucer differently. There is no absolute meaning in a work of literature. Each generation finds something different in Chaucer or Shakespeare. The new discoveries make these works of literature relevant again.

When Scalia argues that the Constitution is dead, he is arguing that we need a new document to take its place, or at least one that is completely altered. The Constitution is a fossilized relic of a bygone age. We should study it for its ideas, but we should not try to preserve them intact.

We should reform the Constitution so that it is easier to change. The framework that Justice Scalia praises so highly has broken down utterly. The Congress is so feeble that it can hardly pass a bill. The President is so powerful that he can violated the Bill of Rights with impunity, merely by declaring a war on some tiny group of people in a far corner of the globe.

The people have passed laws to repair flaws in the Constitution. Justice Scalia and his brethren strike them down. Their decision in Citizens United tells the people that they cannot decide what kind of government they want, but must accept the kind of government described by the framers. All power in the state arises from the people. If the Constitution prevents the people from making decisions based on new information, then it is the Constitution that must yield, not the people.

Nothing lasts forever. Everything eventually outlives its usefulness. The time has come to retire the Constitution and seek a replacement more suited to today.