Our government is deeply dysfunctional. Few people would argue this point, and many thoughtful people believe the Constitution requires amendment before our government can function effectively. Unfortunately, most of these same people (yourself included probably) have resigned themselves to the status quo of dysfunctional government because they feel it is simply too dangerous and/or difficult to amend the Constitution. While I respect this attitude, I wish to suggest that there may be a previously untried path through the amendment process, a path which could offer new hope by largely withdrawing that process from the political battlefield and creating a protected space where civilized and intelligent debate on the subject of amendment becomes a real possibility. From this foundation of reason a more enlightened public dialogue and eventual political consensus may ultimately emerge. I know this sounds improbable but I hope you’ll hear me out anyhow. Our society is in serious trouble, we can ill afford to accept the status quo indefinitely.
The problems facing our Nation are myriad and complex, while public opinion is deeply polarized on seemingly every issue; the prevailing climate is one of hostile intransigence. Under these conditions a public dialogue shaped by sound bites and pundits will never be productive - but this does not mean that intelligent change is impossible. Even the most implacable foes may come to terms and work together when the conditions are right; thirty years ago Russia was an "Evil Empire", today we are joint partners in the space station and American soldiers are invited to parade in Red Square. Change is always possible, but the proper conditions are essential. The conditions created by partisan politics are not conducive to change, they are more suited to the task of balancing factions and maintaining social stability (just as the Framers envisioned), but a new venue and different actors may foster conditions where creative problem solving becomes much more feasible. This new venue is within our reach and may be created by concerned citizens using the existing political tools of our Republic. The venue which I refer to is commonly known as a Congressional Commission and the actors who would inhabit this venerable public stage are not the usual Washington characters, but common citizens* instead. With nearly half the States possessing a Ballot Initiative the tools are close at hand; it is entirely possible for citizens to design a Citizens Constitutional Commission and to compel their Federal elected representatives to support the necessary legislation creating it**. With just a few votes from non-initiative States the Bill would become Law.
A Congressional Commission is an independent entity, created by Congress but wholly autonomous; Commissions are meant to be impartial, objective, and scholarly – qualities not usually associated with Washington. The precise nature of a Commission is a function of the legislation creating it, but Commissions generally meet two broad criteria; first, members are often non-politicians such as academics or experts (or citizens?) and second, there is a pre-determined lifespan unconnected with the exigencies of the election cycle. At the end of its lifespan the Commission furnishes recommendations for Congressional action. I am unaware of any prior Commissions composed of citizens, but there is no practical reason why such a Commission may not be created. In many respects a Congressional Commission is the ideal venue for a scholarly non-partisan Constitutional debate. Of course legislators have often created Commissions as a cynical ploy to generate political cover, but a Citizens Commission should be different. Such a Commission could honestly serve the stated purpose of fostering a non-toxic public debate on the great issues which affect us all. Liberals and Conservatives may disagree on almost every other issue, but we all seem to agree that our Nation is broken; if we can only agree on acceptable ground rules for a sincere public debate in a space beyond the sphere of normal politics then perhaps the logjam can finally be broken.
If a majority of Americans can agree on the details of a Commission (i.e. – a specific mandate, duration, member qualifications, selection process and rules of procedure) then the political implementation should be straight forward – after all, almost everyone says they want change. Presumably the Commission would deliberate at great length (perhaps four years?) during which time a large portion of the alienated electorate might be drawn into the process; every effort should be made to promote public engagement through the medium of the internet, thus relegating commercial media and pundits to the role of bit players on the sidelines. At the end of the Commissions allotted lifespan recommendations would be presented to Congress under the condition of a straight "up or down" vote; it would be important that the legislation leave no room for Congressional tampering or stonewalling with the recommendations. With years to build a consensus the final hurdle of ratification might be surmounted almost as an afterthought.
I don’t believe this approach has been tried in the U.S., but Constitutional Commissions have been created in other Countries and Californians are currently attempting something like this on the State level. It’s hardly a radical concept; if we all agree that the political process is broken then an overhaul of the system is clearly a job for citizens acting above the fray of normal politics. An assembly of educated citizens unconnected with politics, given ample time for study and deliberation, should produce sound recommendations; include the public as fully as possible and a social consensus may emerge. The Commission’s recommendations will still be subject to the normal process of Congressional approval and Ratification; all which is proposed here is that we foster a civilized debate first before attempting to run the gauntlet of the Political process. Perhaps this approach might facilitate a transition to a more functional and effective government; a status quo we can actually approve of rather than a status quo that we must endure while holding our noses.
If this makes sense to you then please think about getting involved. I’m looking for people to share the task of developing and promoting the Citizen’s Commission plan. Without your help this idea will simply disappear, I can’t do it on my own. Contact me; Prose61@gmail.com
*Common but certainly not "average"; Commission members should represent an accurate demographic cross-section of the Country with every area and occupation included, but there would have to be some substantial educational standard imposed.
**This approach to legislation might possibly be open to Constitutional challenge, but regardless of this technicality how many Federal lawmakers would wish to defy a mandate delivered by a majority of their constituents?