I recently conducted a poll which led me to conclude that a majority of Daily KOS participants feel the U.S. Constitution could potentially benefit from a broad review and multiple amendments, but these same people are generally opposed to the idea because they feel that it is simply too dangerous and too difficult to tamper with the Constitution. I respect this viewpoint and sympathize with it, but I would like, nevertheless, to propose an approach to amending the Constitution that could (I think) greatly lessen the dangers involved while simultaneously smoothing a way through some of the political difficulties. Just for a moment, humor me, and entertain the possibility that we might actually "fix" our Constitution.
The usual approach to amending the Constitution is of course to select a single issue like "gay marriage", "balanced budgets" or "campaign finance" and make a direct attack on the supermajority requirements of Congressional approval and state ratification. There’s nothing "wrong" with this but it does limit support to those people who are excited by that one particular issue and it does require a fairly direct assault on the large hurdles of approval and ratification. The other apparent means of amending the Constitution is through an Article V Convention. This should be an option but apparently it’s not (refer to foavc.org for more on this subject). The approach which I propose might be described as a "Citizens Constitutional Commission" (i.e. – a Congressionally created Independent Non-Partisan Commission of "Qualified" Citizens empowered to review the Constitution in a transparent, public, scholarly manner; with the resulting "recommendations" submitted for Congressional consideration when the Commission is finished).
The virtues of the Commission approach are as follows;
• A "Commission" may be created with a simple majority rather than a 2/3 supermajority, and the idea should appeal to more voters than any "single issue" amendment. Theoretically, by fully exploiting the ballot initiative, Congress might virtually be compelled to create a Commission (whether our Legislators like the idea or not!)
• The amendment process is entirely removed from the political arena and given over to a competent* independent non-partisan body (*Commission members would be chosen by lottery, but there would be some substantial educational or testing standard required to qualify for that lottery)
• The lengthy and well publicized proceedings of the Commission should stimulate tremendous public interest and engage alienated voters while transcending much of the usual partisan rhetoric. When the Commission is concluded this voter interest should facilitate the process of Congressional approval and State ratification
It’s a reasonable idea so long as you’re willing to accept the premise that a random body of our best educated, most intelligent citizens should be competent to review and revise "The Law of The Land". Many people may disagree with me here, but seriously if we can’t accept this proposition then really what possible hope is there for our society?
Anyhow that’s the rough idea. There are of course many important details which could easily make or break the actual implementation; how large is the Commission? What are the qualifications for membership? What are the rules of procedure? How long does the Commission run? How to publicize the proceedings with a minimum of "spin" by FOX and the like? How to prevent our Legislators from killing the recommendations before they even come to a vote? Etc, etc, etc... Certainly there can be no illusion that such a thing would be easy, but isn't it at least conceivable that such a Commission might succeed in repairing our Government (or at least make it a little less dysfunctional).
With all due respect for the majority who feel that the Constitution is too important to "tamper" with, I believe that the Constitution is too important not to revise if a revision will help us. In my opinion the status quo is no longer an acceptable option, and if we expect to change the status quo then I think we must start with that fundamental document which regulates our entire society. I think that the approach which I have outlined represents a reasonable means for achieving that end.
No doubt this idea is unworkable for some reason that I am blind to - oh well. I appreciate all feedback, but for the sake of simplicity I have also inserted a poll.