Does our Constitution need an overhaul?

Posted on December 24th, 2007 by ecthompson md

Think about it? Think before you leap to any conclusions. The Magna Carta was/is a great document but it needed to be up dated. The best update of the Magna Carta was the United States Constitution. The Constitution is now over 200 years old. Does it need to be updated? Like your favorite old car- do we need to rebuild the engine and replace the seats?

My answer is I’m not sure. If we really want a democracy than we need to look at the constitution and examine what has happened over the last 6 – 7 years. For that matter, we should examine the last 60 years. How is it in a democracy that a president can be elected without a majority of the popular vote? Why do we still have the electoral college? Is that a democratic institution? When the president has the ability to appoint judges and cabinet members and heads of other government agencies is that democracy in action? When a president vetoes a bill that passes both houses of Congress, the president knows that there is over a 90% chance that Congress will not be able to override his veto, is that a democratic process. I’m just asking because I think that these questions need to asked. We need to think about our democracy from time to time.  When we see that abuses of the Bush administration maybe overhauling our constitution can prevent such abuses in the future.

Bill Moyers has University of Texas professor of law, Sanford Levinson on the Bill Moyers Journal. This is a thoughtful discussion. Mr. Levinson’s book, the Undemocratic Constitution raises many of the questions that I have listed above. This is a great interview. Enjoy.

Bill Moyers Journal - Levinson [ 26:29 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Domestic Issues, Legal // 4 Comments »

  • toosinbeymen

    I think if the constitution needs change it would be down these lines. If we are to remain a democracy and rely on the public making decisions, it has to be properly informed. In the past this has been the job of the press which turned out to be more corruptible than the framers thought. So maybe we need to go back to mild regulation of the press as in something like the Fairness Doctrine.

  • http://www.whereistheoutrage.net ecthompson

    T –

    Thanks for your comments.

    I would take your thoughts a little further and make sure that the press is independent. One company couldn’t and shouldn’t own more than one media outlet in a market. Therefore, the giants can’t own a radio station, a TV station and the newspaper in the same town.

    Thanks again.

  • Truth

    Actually, I think a democracy is misnomer for our nation. The accurate term more like is republic.

    The founders never intended for a pure democracy.

    There are three things they feared: one controlling everything (tyrant), a few controlling everything (oligarchy), and many controlling everything (democracy). It is obvious to many people the first two issues the founders feared.

    But what is not obvious for many today is that they also feared the whims and passions of the people. The checks and balances are not just on the President to prevent him from becoming a tyrant, or the Senate to prevent an oligarchy (since the Senate was also originally elected by state legislatures, not popular vote like today), but also checks and balances on the masses, too. The masses directly vote for the House representatives, and the power of the House is checked by the power of the Senate.

    The reason for electoral college is to prevent direct democracy along those lines.

  • http://www.whereistheoutrage.net ecthompson

    Truth –

    100% correct. Insightful but the question remains should we move the constitution closer to a true democracy?

    Thanks for your comments.

« »