Do *not* toss the phrase "Constitutional Amendment" around lightly

[jducoeur]

I usually reserve my scorn for the Republicans these days, but right at the moment I am deeply cranky at the Democrats.

I just got a spam email (that sounds like nothing quite so much as a loud used-car ad) pointing me to this page. Suffice it to say, the Democrats have apparently submitted a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and they are trying to get zillions of signatures on a petition supporting it.

Now don't get me wrong -- Citizens United is a problem, and not a trivial one. The notion of the "corporate person" has taken deep root in American jurisprudence over the years, and this decision demonstrated that there are some real downsides. And while I'm pretty passionate about the first amendment, I also think there's a place for reasonable campaign finance rules: CU swung things a bit too far towards the fundamentalist viewpoint, IMO.

But I am deeply angry with the Democrats for tossing around a constitutional amendment as if it was just another political football. I am especially angry that, after a couple of minutes of looking around, I haven't yet found the proposed text of this damned amendment. It's not on their home page. Hell, it's not even on their "About" page. I'm sure it is out there somewhere, but they are, as far as I can tell, deliberately obfuscating it, and that is a fine way to lose my support. You can't just say, "We made a Constitutional Amendment, and we're on Your Side, so you know it's good!"

One of America's strengths is an exceptionally streamlined constitution. Compared to many countries, it is short, clear and highly focused on principles, rather than fine-grained rules. It is extremely difficult to change, and for good reason: it isn't a legal code, it is an architecture for that code, and the fundamental guidelines that everything else draws from. No, that isn't consistent, and you can certainly argue about whether you agree with all of those guidelines, but by and large it's still an impressive system, and we should be cautious about tinkering with it.

To me, the way the Democrats are handling this is demeaning to the Constitution. This game of screaming, "CU is evil! We must stop it at All Costs! And we aren't going to bother you with the details!" is deeply insulting to the electorate and the country.

Yes, we need a serious, reasoned debate about the influence of money on politics. And yes, that might eventually lead to an amendment. But hysterically insisting that we should sign This Petition Right Now is not the way to do it...

Comments

[metahacker]

Alright, so, a thought occurred to me. Maybe you can help word this question.

I want to ask my Democratic leaders something, which is something like:
"How are you, if you get back into power, going to prevent the sort of rampant power grab we're seeing currently? In other words, (given past record of centralization of power by Democrats), what actions will you take to restore and enhance the checks and balances inherent in the system?"

Basically--put up or shut up, for them. You say you (don't) want a revolution--give us a reason to trust in you, and then we'll get behind you and turn on the afterburners.

Some folks (Warren) have explicitly stated they'd, first thing, try to push through a stronger voting rights act (if we happen to have a democracy left by 2018); can we get all of them to say so, publicly? First, put out the fire; then see about righting the house.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. I don't know what I'd improve there, but I'll chew on it. I love the question, and I think it's a fine one to be reminding our reps of now -- pointing out that some of us care about the *system* at least as much as we do the *issues*.

I do think your wording above is already at least solidly good. I might adduce an example of two of past actions by the Democrats that give me cause for concern (eg, the elimination of the filibuster on most nominees in 2013), but I do think it's best to keep it as simple and undistracted as possible, without getting into the weeds...

[metahacker]

The filibuster, and reliance on executive orders, were two of mine.

But I'm really not sure what else they were supposed to do in the face of complete GOP obstructionism. Deal-making has always been a fragile way of constructing government in a two-party system; the risk of the other party simply not showing up, while holding a majority, has now become reality for almost a decade. There's precious little ground to compromise when one side's position is "give us all the power, and we'll decide when to let you use it, which is never".

So I don't know. The system may not be viable any more, but updating it would take some careful consideration.