Should we be required to rewrite the constitution?
The Washington Post has an interesting article about a constitutional requirement in 14 states according to which voters must decide at least once a generation whether or not to rewrite the constitution. The provision goes back to the founding of the nation and the idea that in a democracy, it is healthy to not just allow but to actively encourage citizens to rethink the constitutional underpinnings of the state. In fact, Thomas Jefferson claimed that laws naturally expire after 19 years. Writing to James Madison, he said “The earth belongs always to the living generation… If [the constitution] be enforced longer [than 19 years], it is an act of force and not of right.”
In Maryland, the focus of the article, opponents of a constitutional convention claim that the state runs just fine on its current constitution and a convention would be a time and money drain on state lawmakers, with special interests inevitably influencing the process. Some proponents, on the other hand, say that a constitutional convention would invigorate democratic citizenship: “People should be concerned about what the Constitution says and what it means,” Edward C. Papenfuse, Maryland’s state archivist said. “The whole central issue of democracy is paying attention to the body [ ] of what constitutes our government. And I think one of the problems that we have today is that we do not pay enough attention to the structure of government . . . or what the framework should be.”
This whole idea of a mandatory generational constitutional convention is new to me and entirely intriguing. So what do you think? Should we be required to occasionally rewrite the constitution? Or are our politics too polarized and special interest-driven for this to be a beneficial exercise? Maybe the original constitution is as timeless a document as we could hope. But wouldn’t it be fun to dress in wigs and period clothing and speak in Aristocratic accents while using words like “tis” and “whilst”?
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user Phil Scoville used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Related posts:
- How many votes should be required to pass bills in the Senate?
- Libertarianism: for and against assisted suicide
- History helps
- Mandatory public philosophy courses in high school?
- Hate speech and the Constitution
ShareComments
One Response to “Should we be required to rewrite the constitution?”
Leave a Reply
I support the idea of a convention. “Call for Maryland Constitutional Convention” http://princegeorgian.blogspot.com/2010/07/call-for-maryland-constitutional.html
Maryland voters have a chance to call for a constitutional convention. To find that the elected officials are not very supportive should come as no surprise, for those in power and this in apposition to affect policy a rewrite of the constitution is a invitation alter the know pathways to power. In a sense a rewriting would do exactly what Jefferson and many founding revolutionaries wanted a handing off power to a new generation faced with new information and new challenges.