If you had the chance to re-write, not just amend, the constitution, what changes would you make? The “Constitution Drafting Project” did that with three teams representing three different ideologies:
The National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting project brings together three teams of leading constitutional scholars—team libertarian, team progressive, and team conservative—to draft and present their ideal constitutions. Team libertarian was led by Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute and included Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute and Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School. Team progressive was led by Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law School and included Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Melissa Murray of New York University School of Law. Team conservative was led by Ilan Wurman of Arizona State University College of Law and included Robert P. George of Princeton University, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, and Colleen A. Sheehan of Arizona State University. The project was generously supported by Jeff Yass.
The end results all follow the original model, but make some changes. Unsurprisingly, I first looked at what they did with the Bill of Rights. As an example, the 2nd Amendment:
Libertarian:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Conservative:
Neither the States nor the United State shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that States, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.
Progressive:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation by the United States and by the States.
Note how this plays into the post forma few days ago showing that the republicans are just the Democrats, a few years behind. Here, the Libertarians are “nope” to laws infringing on the basic right to arms and the bearing of them. The Progressives are wholly open to a complete ban by way of “reasonable regulation.” And the Conservatives? A lot of jabber that boils down to “yeah, I guess we’re ok with creeping regulations.” The Conservatives couch it in terms of regulating arms for people determined to be threats to themselves or others… and all it would take is a court system that determines that the simple possession of arms means you pose a threat.
One of the more ominous things to read pops up right at the beginning:
Libertarian:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. These ends shall be secured by the powers of this new government, which shall be divided into three branches, and no branch shall exercise the authority of any other branch.
Conservative:
We the People of the United States reaffirm that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
And in reliance on those principles, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Progressive:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty and Equality to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Again we see the Conservatives seem to like to yammer. The Libertarian and Progressive texts are quite similar, but with one vitally important distinction. Libertarians want to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” while Progressives want to “secure the Blessings of Liberty and Equality to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Harrison Bergeron clause, one might say.
Other differences: Libertarians want Representatives to run for 2-year terms, the Conservatives want three-year terms, the Progressives want four-year terms. Libertarians want two Senators for each state with 6-year terms. Progressives want one *or* *more* Senators (based on population) for each state, with 6-year terms. Conservatives want one Senator from each state with a single 9-year term. Note that the progressive approach is a way to provide yet more power to the high population states and remove it from the low population states. This would assure that national political power basically belongs to the major urban areas; rural areas would be permanently reduced to fiefdoms. In furtherance of this, in the Progressive Constitution the Electoral College would be dispensed with, turning the election of the President over to the popular vote.
Seems to me the Progressive Constitution would be a direct path to pissing off Flyover Country by making it clear to them that their needs and wishes and desires will never again be considered by the government of the United States, and that all power will reside in the political machines controlling the major urban areas.
Curiously, both the Conservatives and progressives want 18-year terms for Supreme Court Justices.