Tag: constitution

A Constitution Day Like No Other

Not easy to celebrate this year.

Today, September 17 in the U.S. is Constitution and Citizenship Day in the U.S. It marks the observance of the day that delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document, revered for almost two and half centuries, and now, in my opinion, seriously in danger of being stripped of its meaning by those only adhering to its principles when its convenient and shredding them when it’s not.

CONSTITUTION_iStock 923052552_2500 1200x630.

Tumultuous times today, but there were also tumultuous in the run up to reaching the moment that saw the Constitution adopted. That’s well known and also conveniently forgotten. Until a piece of it needs cherry picking to beat a point home.

It was never a perfect document. It was never intended to be. That’s why there’s an amendment clause in Article V. But amendments to the document require enormous amounts of toil and compromise, are hard to come by, and frankly that process can’t work when you live in a world without principle.

I may not have agreed with some of the things left out of the original document or its later amendments, and perhaps I’m naive, but I do happen to believe that those who argued over what our governing document should be at the time at least had principles that they believed in as opposed to those today who only seem to believe in what’s best for themselves and not the entire body politic.

We talk all the time about the founders who built this thing. It’s a damn shame we’re consumed with talking about a real estate developer who is overseeing its destruction.

You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above.

Shortcutting History for the Sake of a Headline

Context like facts can be a stubborn thing.

Context like facts can be a stubborn thing. Headlines on the other hand often move beyond stubborn into stupid. Jamelle Bouie in the New York Times provides a very good piece of context on the Electoral College in The Founding Fathers Don’t Have the Answer to Every Question. It’s worth your time to give it a read. But please, skip the headline. 

Constitution 56fbf46c3df78c7841b12968.

Bouie provides very good context on the evolution of the Electoral College, tracing many of the changes it has undergone. That evolution is the key to understanding how much we rely and avoid relying on what the Framers intended. Depending on context. 

I don’t take any of Bouie’s history or his opinions on the subject into question. As I understand history he’s pretty accurate and on point. What I take issue with is how the headline, and how summaries or attention getters like it, diminish and impede our understanding of issues both simple and complex. It’s pretty easy to toss the blame onto a bunch of wig-wearing old white men sweating it out in Philadelphia. But it’s ultimately reductive and insulting. 

The Founding Fathers did indeed have an answer to every question. It’s called the amendment process they enshrined in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. It’s not an easy answer because it requires moving political Heaven and Earth to amend the Constitution and it’s become an increasingly heavy lift over the years. 

I’m reasonably sure the Framers made the process cumbersome for the purposes of trying to avoid moments like we’re in now. They had a pretty good understanding of human nature, our strengths and our weaknesses. I believe they knew we would struggle with great change as evidenced by our original sin of slavery that resulted in compromise in order to bring the document into being. 

What they missed, and missed badly, are two things:

1. Our growing capacity for avarice and that we’d turn all of this into a money making machine instead of poltical debate over differing opinions.

2. Our seemingly endless capacity for embracing and extending stupidity. 

You can find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.

Forget Voting, Let’s Just Count The Cash

A Modest Proposal

There’s a part of me that thinks we should dispense with voting and just award the presidency to the candidate who raises the most money. Certainly that would be unfair to those with less money under our current system, but there might be ways to make it more transparent.

Campaign finance 1.

Big bucks donors have always felt this way. At least that’s what they have told themselves after stroking large checks to this or that PAC. It used to be for a chance to grab a government contract or two and that’s still the case. But after the 2016 election many got their quid-pro-quo with the Trump tax cuts. Some of which will expire at the end of 2025. Bettting on an extension or making those tax cuts permanent more aptly explains the current willingness to toss out good money after bad character. 

That’s the point. As long as there’s a buck to be made, make the bet. Trump’s an edges-bent, easy to read wildcard, but big donors, like some criminals posing as world leaders, are counting on the chaos to save some tax scratch while also allowing them to do whatever the heck they want to do to keep the cash spigots open. They know what they’re betting on.

Regardless of party, politics has always been about who gets to ride the gravy train. With the Democrats some of it is actually about policy. With what used to be called the Republican Party it has always been about grift and graft. Mix in a little God and you can even roll the suckers when you pass the collection plates.

All of this gets dressed up in political debates about regulation, campaign financing, laws, and ethics. But those duds are as see through as the new Major League Baseball uniforms.

So here’s a modest proposal. Let folks donate as much as they want. But each donation only counts as one dollar towards the outcome regardless of the size of the donation. Do away with PACs and other three-card monte schemes that reward political operatives and lobbyists. Donate the money directly to the candidate. Only individuals can donate. None of this “corporations are people” bullshit. Tie the donations to social security numbers. It would still be about turnout, but you could only turn out your pockets once and make it count. Say goodbye to the Electoral College and Make Accounting Great Again.

Stupid? Probably. Candidates used to buy votes with a beer and a sandwich, now corporations and other governments buy candidates. I doubt this would change our genetic code that builds liars and cheaters, but it would at least be a stab at more honesty.

You can find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.