One Larry J. Sabato says that America needs a new, more liberal Constitution. Yet, despite the length of his article in the Los Angeles Times, all you really need to know about what he wants can be summed up in this one sentance:

If we really want to make progress and achieve greater fairness as a society, it is time for elemental change.

As is the case with most liberals, they care little for right and wrong (you’d have to make judgments about people) and care more about fairness and equality in outcomes. Unfortunately, what is right and what is fair are often on opposite sides of the spectrum, and this reveals the biggest difference between liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives understand that what is right may be unfair to some people, even themselves, and are willing to submit to right nonetheless. Liberals want something that makes them feel good, whether or not it is right or just.

Sabato’s first suggestion regarding the War Powers Act is probably the only suggestion that should be taken seriously. Good points can be made for both sides of this argument, and a little debate over it would probably be a good thing. However, the following really rankles me:

This is an institutional reform, not a partisan attack on George W. Bush. Harry Truman on Korea and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on Vietnam were every bit as stubborn as Bush has been on Iraq. It is in the nature of the single-minded, victory-insistent presidential beast.

Single minded, victory- insistent presidential beast? If the President is going to lead us into war, should he not be single-minded about victory? Is Mr. Sabato suggesting that a president who leads the nation into war do so with anything less than the single-minded goal of being victorious over our enemies? If so, he needs to get his head examined.

* Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation’s people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states — and thus the unfairness — was far less.

But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let’s build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.

This next proposal makes me think Mr. Sabato slept through all of his history classes in middle and high school. The Senate is not meant to represent the people based upon population; that is what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was created to make sure that all of the States in the Union had an equal say regarding legislation. The Senate is there to prevent the States with larger populations from hi-jacking the legislative process and passing laws with little or no regard for the well-being of less populated States. Sabato’s suggestion does little except make the Senate a carbon-copy of the House.

The electoral college also must be overhauled, with more populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based electoral college isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if the 2000 Florida recount had to be conducted nationwide.

Ever since Gore lost the 2000 Presidential Election, the liberals have been trying to convince the country to get rid of the Electoral College. Like the Senate, the Electoral College was created to make sure that large groups of people from different regions of the country couldn’t hi-jack Presidential elections. Do you realize that if the Electoral College were abolished, each and every Presidential Election would be decided by those people who live on the East Coast and the West Coast? These are the two biggest population centers, and because they’re mostly liberal in political affiliation, liberals would like nothing more than to eliminate those people who live in “fly-ver country” from having any say in Presidential Elections. Again, the Electoral College is there to make sure that all States have a say in Presidential politics.

Sabato’s last suggestion regarding non-natural born citizens being able to run for President is another issue where there are two legitimate sides to the argument. However, I see no great need to change the criteria to be eligible to run for President.

Taken as a whole, this article can be seen as one liberal’s ideas for ensuring that America is run by the Democrat Party for years to come. His major proposals do nothing but erode the rights of people who live in the mid-section of the country to have a say in government. Indeed, if his wish to eliminate the Electoral College were to come to pass, politicians would never travel anywhere but New York and California during elections. The vast majority of the country would be ignored, which I’m sure is what the liberals want in the first place.

This is what having a “living, breathing” Constitution does for you. It allows the few to enslave the many, which is why our Constitution is extremely hard to change.

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 10th, 2007 at 7:14 pm by Nick, and is filed under Government, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.