I have lately heard a lot of speculation and planning around the topic of changing our Constitution--by adding an Amendment, typically, or (less frequently) by somehow “revisiting” an existing Amendment to modify its text or meaning.
In order to assist you in your laudable quest to bend our Constitution more favorably towards your beliefs and the feelings of those people you would represent, I have designed a simple, scientific and fool-proof test to determine if such a modification is a practical approach to the problem you’re interested in confronting.
In order to prepare for this test, you should first:
- Consider the problem you seek to address in depth. Consider especially how the Constitution, as it currently exists, addresses or fails to address that problem.
- Contemplate both the text and meaning of the Amendment you are working on. Brainstorm plausible scenarios in which your Amendment would be relevant and think about what kind of an impact it would have. Don’t constrain your imaginings to just the legal ramifications of this would-be Amendment (as it might be interpreted in a Supreme Court decision, say) but also keep in mind that we, as Americans, tend to broadly permit the ideals within our Constitution to inform our national ethos. This is especially true of high-concept Amendments such as those in the Bill of Rights, which generally explicitly prohibit the government from taking certain actions.
- Perform some serious opposition research. Spend some time ingesting news or discussion related to the problem you seek to address--especially as generated by websites or interest groups that may not agree with your point of view. Opposing positions often provide the most valuable insights.
The Test: Is it at all possible that many Americans would be opposed to your Amendment? In other words, is your proposition at all controversial?If you answered “Yes” then I have great news that will save you both time and energy. There is a far simpler process for solving your problem--far, far simpler than attempting any sort of modifications to our Constitution. The first (and most essential!) step in this process is SHUT THE FUCK UP.
A lot of public figures throughout our history have talked about grand plans to amend the Constitution. This type of discussion tends to ratchet up around election seasons especially. So can you guess why this approach to legislative problem-solving--despite its wild and perennial popularity--has only actually and successfully been employed a handful of times? I’ll give you a hint, it’s YOU’RE A FUCKING MORON AND SHOULD DIE.
It is fantastically difficult to change the Constitution. This is by design. It is, yes indeed, the supreme law of the land, which some fairly reasonable people felt should be largely sheltered from the political winds of the day. If, in using my test to evaluate your Amendment, you thought something like “Well, the [minority party] in Congress will probably oppose it, even though they are pretty far in the minority right now...” or something more like “Hmmm, more than a dozen states won’t go for it, especially the really strong [your least favorite color] states...” then YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CHANCE OF AMENDING THE GODDAMN CONSTITUTION.
This is an essential point. Despite the apparent ease with which that strange little Amendment enacting the prohibition of liquor (or it’s subsequent and hasty “undo” Amendment) found its way into the fold, the Constitution is really quite resistant to change. And by telling people that you’re going to change the Constitution in some way that appeals to them YOU’RE A LYING FUCKING WEASEL and moreover YOU NEED TO SHUT YOUR STUPID FUCKING HOLE RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.
Some final advice: remember to exercise caution when discussing modifications to the Constitution. Although most Americans (including, likely, those you are seeking to impress) are only dimly aware of the contents of that document (i.e., they have some notion that it "gives them rights" or a jumbled idea that it somehow enshrines their personal and deeply held beliefs and prejudices), others may be more knowledgeable. Any of these latter may possess an emotional attachment to the document, prompting him or her to respond quite negatively to your ideas (especially if your proposed Amendments are controversial). They may misinterpret your sincere and constructive attitude as glib disregard for the Constitution, or, perhaps, as disingenuous manipulation of those Americans in your audience who may not fully appreciate the difficulty of amending the US Constitution.
I hope you found this presentation to be as enjoyable as I have YOU VILE ASSHATS FUCK OFF AND DIE,
NFK
What happens when a party has solid, if poorly thought out, ideas about how to fix all the problems, and controls all houses of government? If you're the Democratic Party, you start whining that the problems still exist and collapse in on yourself.
ReplyDeleteIf you are the GOP, you put your hopes on something unrealistic, like a constitutional amendment. In '04, Bush kept his majority and raised fire and brimstone about an anti-gay marriage amendment, but when it came time to deliver he could do a half-hearted policy push, get all his people on his side, and blame the Dems that the issue is still alive.
Contrast with the Dem's main issues. Public healthcare, pull out of Iraq/Afg, close Guantanamo. Even if there were a way to do any of these things immediately, it takes time to figure out what that way is. But politicians don't run on, "Vote me in, and I'll figure out a good way to withdraw from Iraq", they run on the action. Iraq/Afg/Guant are particularly bad for Obama because he is the only actor in those areas. He can't say he's moderated or delayed a plan in negotiation with someone else, he can't say someone else defeated his big promises.
Also see the "ground zero mosque", where nobody thinks the government can actually do anything about it, but damn are they angry. There's no actionable government policy here, just smoke and fire.
Also see steel tariffs in early 2000, where to support the dieing steel industry, Bush put tariffs on foreign steel that were guaranteed to be struck down by the WTO.
All in the game, baby
Thinking that the Dems "collapsed" gives them too much credit, assumes some semblance of structure. They should just do some soul-searching and agree to change their name back to the Not Republicans Party. That would manage our expectations more reasonably. Because I feel great shame that we get saddled with these corrupt pussies if we want to pretend that people like us see any kind of "representation".
ReplyDeleteFor the Amendment rhetoric, I think I'd really like to see this bullshit well poisoned, finally. There's just something particularly distasteful about a guy who says "You should support me because I'm telling you that I'll fundamentally change the most abstract structure of our entire society to better suit your current prejudices." It's a real problem that most of our politics are hollow happy-talk and manufactured controversy, but someone skating by on the notion of amending the Constitution is almost certainly flagrantly lying--or a complete idiot with no concept of how shit works. And saying you'll modify the Constitution to *remove* or further constrain any of our rights is more than that, it's reprehensible.
Don't even get me started on the fucking "mosque"....that "story" got me thinking that maybe we *should* modify the first Amendment after all, so that we no longer protect the case of unbelievable stupidity. I think I shat out something like 20 pages of raw fury on the "mosque"--if the spirit moves me in the next few days to pare all that down to 2 semi-coherent pages, it'll be another post.