I keep seeing these pieces about how democracy is in danger and there’s no “compromise.”
Maybe the time to worry about “democracy” was every time some disgruntled activist went to court to overturn the majority decision in a referendum or initiative. Oh, you don’t get to vote on other peoples’ rights? Fair enough. Does that include how much of their wealth people get to keep, or their right to freedom from regulation? No? Who exactly decided that some group gets to declare what is and is not a right? Who decided it is a right for people to use the restroom corresponding to their gender identity, but not a right to build a storage shed in your back yard without a permit? Who decided that the social concerns about gender identity don’t carry weight, but concerns about property values do?
The Tea Party is over a decade old. Name a single compromise that Tea Party opponents have made with them. Just one. Not some little tit for tat log rolling in a measure declaring National Peanut Butter Day, but a serious compromise where Tea Party opponents have said “I really don’t like this, but we will have to live with it because right now, the majority is against us.” Gun ownership? Have you really, fully accepted that it’s a right, or are you just looking for a different strategy?
And this is why they’re so intransigent. They’ve tried working with the opposition and getting backed into corners. So they’ve decided no more. If you want compromise, you do the compromising.
Trump ignoring the rules is “unprecedented?” Ask the Cherokee about Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court.
Way back in 1987, I argued that the proper way to celebrate the Bicentennial of the Constitution was to call a Constitutional Convention. We’d have probably ended up with a quite different set of Amendments than if we called one today. But it takes 38 States to ratify. Don’t believe the myth that the last time we did it, they ran amok and created a whole new document. After drafting the Constitution, the Convention submitted it to Congress, and Congress, in turn, voted to submit it to the States for ratification. I don’t think it will be hard to find 13 states to block, say, a total ban on abortion or gun ownership.
I’d personally like to see a requirement that bills pertain to a single topic (no riders), a Presidential line-item veto, and allowing, say, ten states to pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional amendment, which then goes directly to the states for action. I think it would be nice to have some radical protections for privacy and personal liberties, maybe fleshing out the 14th Amendment’s vague reference to “privileges and immunities.” The worst hole in the Constitution is there’s nothing really requiring the States to protect individual liberties (back in 1787 it was felt that the great danger was a central government abrogating rights guaranteed by the States), but an Amendment on that would be a hard sell. I’d like to see a requirement that court verdicts be based solely on factual guilt or innocence, and a Constitutional guarantee against false imprisonment (right now you can be held in prison, even if you’re known to be innocent, if the Courts followed all the rules). I’d like to see an absolute ban on fees for any mandatory license, permit or inspection. If you want to fund the regulatory agency, hold a bake sale.
If I were President, I’d schedule a Constitutional crisis every six months because that’s how serious challenges to the status quo come about. All crises do is raise your blood pressure. They are not necessarily harmful. Right now we have certain power blocs that have favor in the judicial system, and every time a Court vacancy opens up they go into panic mode. They’re also in panic mode over Trump’s pushing the boundaries. My forecast is that one side or the other will get a supermajority.
