This Is What Happens, Larry

(Updated)

I'm going to write about two things that I think are interesting, since I like to give some different "topics" that we could all write about. The first one is the United States Constitution.

Most people in this country hold the Constitution in highest esteem and revile it, many to the point of thinking that the Constitution is more or less perfect in every way. I have to confess to feeling this way much of the time, being a political junkie and a public affairs student. But upon scrutiny, there are several things that are undemocratic about our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson proposed that the Constitution should be scrutinized in a Constitutional Convention as often as every twenty years. But since that convention in 1787, the Constitution has not not been subject to such scrutiny (at least not by the American people; one could argue that the handful of amendments to the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution could be a sort of scrutiny). So the question is this: Should the Constitution be subject to a new Constitutional Convention, with the goal of, at the very least, subjecting it to serious scrutiny and even possibly changing some things? And if so, what things do you think could use evaluation? I have a few ideas.

One of the things I am most interested in would be the apportionment of the Senate. The Senate is a decidedly undemocratic institution. In the news, we hear quite often about people being upset with Congress for adding things to bill at the 11th hour and many times in ways that avoid scrutiny and debate; however, due to the nature of the Senate, sometimes this is necessary, and I, for one, would not advocate passing any sort of bill restricting this sort of behavior. The reason being, the way the Senate is apportioned, people in a state like Wyoming, with a population of 515,004, and a state like North Dakota, with a population of 642,200, have as much power in the Senate as a state like California, with a population of 33,871,648 - and, obviously, things that a state like California, with it's large urban areas and population, would need, can get blocked by states like Wyoming or North Dakota, who have vastly different interests and needs that California. Which is why it becomes necessary for a state like California to attach things in the dark of night, otherwise many things just wouldn't get passed. Obviously the Senate apportionment was set for a reason, as part of the Connecticut Compromise, and otherwise the Constitution might not have ever passed the Convention, let alone get ratified; however, chattel slavery was also a compromise in the Constitution, because had the Founders included language harsh to slavery, the Constitution wouldn't have stood a chance. So possibly we could take a look at Senate apportionment.

Some other ones would be: Lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices. Does it make sense that Supreme Court Justices are given life tenure, and remain on the bench no matter how old they get, failing health, etc. However, it would fuck up the Supreme Court should if we changed things in certain ways; SCOTUS nominees already get politicized during their Senate confirmation hearings, so we obviously wouldn't want to make it any more political. But should we impose some sort of forced retirement age? Would that be fair, given that some people at 80 and even 90 are still sharp and lucid? Or should we make it a fixed period of time, say, 10 years? 20 years? The Supreme Court is one of the major reasons to vote for a President, or at the very least a Congress, that is friendly to your beliefs. Anyone that Bush, for example, puts on the bench will be legislating long, long after Bush is gone.

How about abolishing the electoral college? Do we really need that anymore? And what about making it easier to amend the Constitution? (Do you really see, in our current political climate, and using our current framework, any amendment EVER passing? I don't.) How about constituting some sort of vote of "no confidence" for our chief executive? As it stands now, there's no chance of impeaching someone like Bush, who I think most of us here on this blog would agree is incompetent, and I would personally argue is the President MOST deserving of impeachment; but Bush has something like 700 days or more left in office, and we just have to wait him out- as a lame duck, who knows what kind of damage he and Cheney will cause. Some might argue that we should do away with presidential term limits- if the electorate wants, for example, Bill Clinton to be elected again, why shouldn't we get it? (Not saying that I personally would want that, that's just an example.) I'm sure you all can come up with other things. Or, maybe you think that, with our current political climate, that the Constitution shouldn't be messed with; it might come out of a new Convention much, much worse.

Now, I'm not saying that I personally advocate these things; for example, I wouldn't be convinced we should get rid of term limits; I might not mind Bill Clinton running again, but I sure as hell wouldn't want the chance of a third term for Bush. And there's strong arguments for and against all of these things, and I haven't done a shitload of research on all of this (electoral college, for example).

The second thing I wanted to mention was this bullshit last week in Boston. Now, I have a bias towards Boston; I'm planning on moving there next year, I love New England and hold that area in high esteem, being the birthplace of America, not to mention being a liberal haven. However, this uproar over the Aqua Teen Hunger Force "guerrilla advertising" campaign is a huge black mark. These ads were places in cities all over, in places like Texas, and no one gave a shit. Now, someone supposedly saw this on an overpass and wanted it checked out, and I think that is appropriate; everything should always be checked out and caution should always be taken. But these things were so obviously not bombs. And then Boston officials shut the entire city down, crippling its highways and train systems, and then had these two poor kids arrested and held big angry press conferences; this was obviously to cover their asses, since they looked like buffoons getting so upset about cartoon advertising. So one question would be, do you agree? Or do you think that their response was warranted? I would say that maybe these guys were wrong for putting these things up, and maybe should have alerted Boston officials firsthand. However, these things were little plastic things with lite-brite lights on them. So maybe the most these guys could be charged with would be the equivalent of illegal flyering (if there is such a thing). But the main thing I'd like to discuss is: Do you think that this reaction, beyond just being a sort-of faux outrage brought on by the Boston officials embarrassment, is a reaction to the kind of relentless fearmongering that has been going on in our society? With our current President and his administration pushing fear on us, as well as our news shows, TV shows like 24 which are held up as being "realistic," etc., is it any wonder that people freak out and shut an entire city down? What could we do about this, and do you see it getting better or worse in the future?

Update: This Boston Herald article shows some proof that the guys that planted these light boards were actually watching and filming the Boston police and officials response; surveillance video shows them on the scene with a video camera. This would seem to show that these guys had some expectation of a response, or at the very least were getting some enjoyment out of the frenzied and fearful reaction, which would seem to change the idea that these guys were totally innocent and unaware of what might happen as a result of these things being placed around the city. One op-ed writer has also pointed out that Boston might have more of an excuse for their overblown reaction when compared to the other several major cities these ads were placed in, because of Boston's link to 9/11. Does this new information change in any way your opinion of what happened?