I'll be honest, I have no idea why I choose that name for this, but I like the way it sounds. I want to talk about the actual process of how this would work...the hard nuts and bolts of making a pool of issues, and determining what the government can't do; what local governments do; and what the federal government does.
What a government can't do isn't necessarily a right. After all, if we're using a modern definition of rights instead of the libertarian or classical definition, a right can be something you have a right TO, rather than a right to have the government NOT do. I argue that rights are a separate thing in that; I think every constitution should have a Bill of Rights, but that should be a secondary product of deciding which spheres of authority a government should be able to regulate. I'll be addressing my ideas of a Hierarchy of Rights in Article V or when I deal with the amendments.
Step 1)
So then, how do you determine what the areas you're picking from are? I argue that the easiest way is to allow people to nominate; say allow the signatures of 25,000 people to ensure that an item gets added to a master list. That's it. And you get to add your name to say...5 petitions. That will give you a pretty good list to start.
After that, delegates can group items together in packages as they see fit.
If you don't allow bundling, you're going to have two points like 'Naval Security' and 'Coast Guard'...while not the same thing, delegates might want them to be the same thing. And a better example, 'Environment' and 'Acid Rain' which is very granular...
It can allow putting everything together very difficult. More importantly, if you don't set down some rules somehow, then the delegates might just make up their own list and ignore the suggestions.
I also think allowing delegates to add their own items is a good idea to patch holes. For example, if no one thought to add 'school lunches' but certain delegates think its a good idea, then you can go from there.
Why use such a chaotic process on something so important? Because its very democratic, and it ensures a remix when the constitution is forged. It means you're going to get a constitution to serve the modern needs of society, rather than archaic notions of what dead people want.
In short, its a reset button.
And yes, the process could be subject to abuse. You know what? So is any process, but at least this way the entry is open, transparent and ensures at least the fact that EVERYONE in 'we the people' is involved at the forefront.
And as for how to prevent problems, I think the emphasis should be put on the ratification and the delegate selection.
Step 2) Delegates
If there was ever a moment where you NEED a legislature, then the formation of a constitution is one. I suppose you could have some crazy wiki thing where you freeze it after a set period of time...but trust me, that just wouldn't work well.
So the question is, how do you select the delegates? "Good and Wise Men" won't cut it since last time around we got a bunch of conservatives that thought owning people was OK.
I could do strengths and weaknesses again but in this case I think there is only one way to do it that won't allow for conservative corruption; random draw. You need a large sample; say 500...and then you randomly select from the entire population of the government. Yes, that means you're going to get some stupid people. And yes, that means that you're likely to get at least 25% conservative/libertarian voters, but if you publicly select the delegates via social security number via random lottery style...then at least you're getting somewhere.
You *MUST* pay these delegates enough to live for 6 months to a year while they hammer out constitutions. (I'll get to that.) Rich people shouldn't be the only people who can afford to be delegates. You allow them to elect officers and divide into committees.
How are random people going to do this? Advisers, also randomly selected from both local and federal officials from the previous government. They have no voting power, but their experience can help the delegates understand what it is they're supposed to do.
No system is perfect, but this way you still have institutional knowledge, and by random selection with a sufficiently large sample, you're going to ensure that all sexes, races, creeds, religions and the like are involved in the creation of the document.
But just in case...
Step 3) 3 Competing Constitutions.
You have three different groupings of government areas set up into piles of federal authority, local authority and that government is not supposed to touch.
From a practical stand point, I understand you saying, "Well what if they select something insane like not allowing the local or the federal government to regulate murder?"
There are three checks on that:
1) Everyone gets to vote on the competing constitutions for what they like best. - That will ensure fatally flawed documents are left behind.
2) The Hierarchy of Rights
I'll be addressing this in the future....but this document will become part of the constitution after the first Brundlestaag.
3) Line Item Veto
Everyone will also have the ability to line item veto, by two thirds majority, sections of the constitution that they don't like.
Step 4) Ratification by 2/3rd majority.
Because this is a democracy, not a conservative republic.
Problems:
1) How do you deal with conservative disruption like filibusters and the like?
No system can ever be entirely conservative proof. However, you can have a process whereby people who are not contributing any solutions can be removed by 2/3rds of the delegates.
If that doesn't work, then you simply have the auto default by the OLD constitution gets put into play if people don't get off their asses and do nothing; which gives a slight bias towards conservatives, but can also protect liberals from conservative mischiefs too.
Nothing is perfect, and it is better than what we have now. It puts a process in place to make change and allow people to make change as they will.
2) It's easy to remove sections of government that people don't like but hard to put in sections that a minority wants.
I'm a liberal, but I'm also in favor of small government. If you can't convince at least a majority of randomly selected delegates to put something in the local or federal government section, then you really shouldn't be forcing people to do it. Make your case to the public, not the courts and not a legislature.
Educate.
3) You could still have a monstrous provision that attacks or singles out a minority of some kind and harms them.
You could. But really right now you can do that via amendment if you get enough people. Remember that if you can't you just go back to the status quo. You can have prejudice with no amendment in theory protecting you; such as Defense of Marriage Act invoked by conservative 'christians.'
Addendum: There are solutions to society's problems besides the government. Even though the Libertarian anti government lens is insane, that doesn't mean that small government is a bad thing. In another post I will talk about alternatives to government action that still allow a society to solve issues that are desired to be addressed that fall into the third category but are not given to local or federal governments in this process.
No comments:
Post a Comment