Our government is deeply dysfunctional. Few people would argue this point, and many thoughtful people believe the Constitution requires amendment before our government can ever 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 might ultimately emerge. The rigorous requirements of Article V would of course remain unchanged, but the process envisioned here could conceivably prepare the ground for a fruitful use of the Article V provisions. 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 constitute irrefutable proof that an informed and reasonable debate can never take place. 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 not necessarily impossible, but the proper conditions are clearly 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 feasible. This new venue is theoretically within our reach and could 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 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 plausible that a body of citizens could draft legislation creating a Citizens Constitutional Commission and to compel their Federal elected representatives to enact this legislation**. Many (futile) Commissions have been created over the years, but surely there has never been a Commission designed and populated by citizens. 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 would seem to be the ideal venue for a scholarly non-partisan Constitutional debate. Of course legislators usually create Commissions as a cynical ploy to generate political cover, but a Citizens Commission, carefully designed to avoid the usual oblivion, 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 might almost be straight forward – after all, 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 direct public engagement with the proceedings of the Commission through the medium of the internet, thus relegating commercial media and pundits to 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 absolutely vital that the legislation leave no room for Congressional tampering or evasion when the Commission ends and the recommendations are presented. With years to build a consensus the final political challenge of Article V might be attempted with some reasonable hope for success.
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 thid idea. Without your help this idea will simply disappear, I can’t do it on my own. Prose61@gmail.com For the overwhelming majority of readers, who find this idea ridiculous, please be aware that this diary has been posted before and your own criticisms have most likely already been answered. Please refer to the following Appendix before commenting.
*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?
Appendix: A response to the various comments.
Perhaps I have failed as a writer to communicate this idea fully and clearly; still, when I read the comments received so far it does not even appear that these people read the entire piece. I think it really is a basic courtesy that one should read an entire diary before dismissing it as junk. Here are my responses to the specific criticisms received so far.
- Article V is the only way to change the Constitution, period. - The proposed Citizens Commission in no way attempts to contravene Article V of the Constitution. It merely proposes a somewhat novel (but entirely legal) means of preparing the ground so that we can make full and effective use of Article V. Only by the most twisted logic could one construe this proposal to be "revolutionary" or even for that matter un-constitutional. Where in the U.S. Constitution does is say that there shall be no discussion regarding the possibility of amendment? The fact that Article V exists clearly presupposes that there will be a debate prior to the actual implementation of Article V. All that is proposed here is that we should create a proper debate.
- Why don’t I make specific proposals for Amendments? – Personally, I would like to see dozens of amendments but that is entirely beside the point. It is exceedingly difficult to achieve the necessary political consensus to pass and ratify an Amendment. That consensus is more likely to be achieved by instituting a wide open discussion in which everyone can be heard. That is what the proposed Citizens Commission would do. If I start an organization to pursue my own pet Amendment then I am simply creating a new fringe group. If an organization exists for everyone who wishes to see an Amendment then this organization has the possibility of becoming a mass movement that can achieve results.
- There is no substance to this proposal. I am simply ascribing magical properties to the word "citizen", Commissions are just a tool for politicians to avoid responsibility – It is well understood that politicians create commissions to generate political cover. There have probably been hundreds if not thousands of commissions created over the years and I very much doubt if anything has ever been achieved by any of them. I still maintain that this proposal contains a critical difference; in this case the legislation creating the commission will be drafted by citizens not politicians and delivered to Washington in the form of a mandate that will not allow for tampering by the political establishment. This is why I suggest the State Ballot Initiative as an important tool; by using the Ballot Initiative we can deliver a specific fully formed piece of legislation to our Representatives and demand that they support it without alteration. A National organization with its own Constitution and by-laws would be required to formulate the legislation, otherwise this truly is just some sort of lunatic fringe idea without real substance, but within the context of a proper legal framework I believe the Citizens Commission can be a legitimate vehicle for an authentic Democratic movement to amend the Constitution.
- It’s ridiculous to think that liberals and conservatives can ever agree on anything – The polarized state of our society is exacerbated and maintained by the commercial media. The media benefits because the lunatic fringe make good viewing and all of the other business interests benefit because so long as liberals and conservatives are busy fighting each other they will be unable to do anything that threatens the profitable status quo of business as usual. It is not reasonable to use the commercial media as our gauge regarding what may or may not be possible socially or politically. And yet virtually the entire blogosphere revolves around the commercial media.
- "I’m sorry, I’d love to believe there’s some way of stopping this train wreck, but it is already well underway. We are a broken nation. No magical commissions will change that." – I would be the last person on earth to dispute the fact that the future appears exceedingly grim. Nevertheless, none of us can predict the future and no one can deny the slim possibility that there may still be hope. If we refuse to even look for solutions then we deserve whatever we get.