Virginia Needs a New Constitution, Part 1

by Donald J. RippertCarved in stone.

  America’s elite and their lap dogs within our political structure know that larceny is best accomplished within a vacuum of change. If the “little people” in a democracy ever figure out that they can force the politicians to change the laws then the elite find crony capitalism far more difficult to practice. For example, big money in politics favors the elite (who have the money). It also favors their political puppets who know they are better able to remain “politicians for life” if raising gobs of money remains more important than solving problems. So, the question of the excessive influence of money in American politics is simply answered with two words, “Citizens United.”  The U.S. Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to restrict money in politics, ergo it can’t be done. But, of course, it can be done. The U.S. Constitution can be amended. Yet as Americans across the political spectrum vent their rage against the influence of George Soros and the Koch Brothers nothing is done. Why?

The Big Lie. America’s political insiders have convinced many of us that the U.S. Constitution is, effectively, inviolate. The right tells us that the Constitution is the product of divine inspiration written by human hands. The left relies on stasis and judicial manipulation of “the living Constitution” to let unelected judges perform the duties that our elected representatives stubbornly refuse to undertake. The net result of this conspiracy between America’s vested interests and its political class is a polarized nation where economic stagnation is the order of the day for an ever increasing percentage of its people. Yet no matter how fundamental our problems become, the case for fundamental change is blocked by a bizarre belief that the U.S. Constitution cannot be changed.

Erasing history. One of the more insipid approaches taken to ossify the U.S. Constitution is to rely on the ignorance of many Americans by insisting that the framers knew they had created a near perfect document and, therefore, made it very hard to change. The fact that the framers wrote the first ten amendments before the ink dried on the U.S. Constitution somehow doesn’t dispel this recounting of history. Thomas Jefferson provides an interesting perspective both from his vantage as a founding father and from the long life he led after the American Revolution. Jefferson had the chance to observe the Constitution’s effect on America for decades after its ratification. In a letter to Samuel Kercheval in 1816 Jefferson had this to say:

“But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates.”

 

Jefferson knew the Constitution was imperfect. After 26 years of seeing the U.S. Constitution in action he was contemplating the merits of scheduled revisions.

Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus. Virginia has a much different constitutional history than the United States. The State Constitution of Virginia has been rewritten six times since it was first ratified in 1776. Not amended, not revised, rewritten. Much of what has gone into those constitutions was the predictably disgraceful and prejudiced thinking emblematic of Virginia’s political class. However, Jefferson’s home state has proven that it is willing to avoid being trapped under “the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

But what of today?  Would Virginia’s current political class consider following the Old Dominion’s longstanding history of “out with the old and in with the new”? Thinking optimistically I suppose that would depend on whether there were enough good ideas to justify yet another rewrite. Thinking pessimistically, our state politicians are as corrupt as their peers in Washington and know full well that mandated unchanging power keeps their political lives long and their personal pockets full.

Just this once, I am going to think optimistically about our current state government.

The remainder of this series will examine why it is time that we throw out the present Virginia constitution in favor of a new one that keeps pace with the times and improves the lot of all of us governed under that constitution.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

11 responses to “Virginia Needs a New Constitution, Part 1”

  1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Citizens United was a case where the federal government tried to prohibit a group of people from airing a film critical of Hillary Clinton and promoting the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. The Supreme Court struck down this restriction as violating the First Amendment’s right to free speech. The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

    Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion found that the law’s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. He wrote, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

    It allowed individuals and entities to spend money on electioneering and advocate for or against a candidate or an issue. The majority held the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. In other words, it allows George Soros and the Koch Brothers the same right as Jeff Bezos has because he owns the WaPo. It allows groups of individuals to ban together to speak on a issue or a candidate.

    The alternative is control of speech by incumbents and the “recognized media.” While one may not like Soros or the Kochs, do we really want to live in a nation with political speech controlled by Jeff Bezos, Comcast, Disney, the WSJ, etc.? Do we want to live in a nation where one cannot promote anti-Trump or anti-Clinton films? Citizens United is an important case to freedom from political debate controlled by only a few.

    1. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      No right is absolute. The right to free speech does not allow for libel or slander nor does it allow for the disclosure of classified documents. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

      In a democracy the right of the citizens to trust the inherent fairness of their government trumps most other rights. The excessive power of money in politics is threatening that right and the eventual results will be catastrophic.

      Many democracies outside of the United States insist on public funding and campaign spending limits. These countries have hardly become tyrannies. Norway forbids political ads on television or radio. Somehow their country has not yet slid off the glacier and into the North Sea.

      19 states and countless municipalities in the United States have passed propositions instructing their lawmakers to get the money out of politics. Here is the wording from Proposition 19 in California … “Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) …”

      It passed 53% to 47%

      I am not sure how the United States can be considered a democracy if the will of the people using the US Constitution as intended cannot reign in the deep state and the scandalous elite that funds it.

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        But it’s OK for companies that operate a newspaper or a broadcast radio or TV station or a cable TV network ,along with a website to intervene and advocate right up to the day of an election, but not for another company, association or labor union to do the same. That’s what a constitutional repeal of Citizens United means.

        We know Bezos can advocate up to the day of an election. What about Zuckerberg? Is Facebook close enough to a media outlet to trigger First Amendment rights? How about Google? If George Soros or the Koch brother launch a social media site or buy a daytime-only AM station in South Dakota, does that allow them to match the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, LA Times, Comcast NBC? I know labor unions own banks. I bet they could buy a radio station and get the same rights as Disney.

        Your proposal protects some speech while allowing repression of other speech solely because of the nature of the person speaking. That’s why SCOTUS struck down the law in Citizens United. It’s very scary to allow some Americans to speak on a candidate or issue right before an election, but prohibiting another from doing the same. And keep in mind that the WaPo, WSJ, Time Warner, etc. are corporations as much as the other corporations that the left wants to silence. So it’s not a matter of corporations not having First Amendment rights.

        And a risk of changing the Virginia constitution to institute local autonomy is that citizens will be treated differently as to their fundamental rights based on where they live. One area might prohibit construction of Mosques, while they can be built elsewhere. One area might say no one can buy or possess a magazine that holds more than six bullets, while residents of other areas can own them. One area might outlaw pawn shops, while they are permitted in other parts of the state.

        Neither Virginia nor the United States is a democracy. They are republics with many checks and balances designed to protect the rights of minorities and to slow the passion of the people by making it more difficult to pass legislation than to stop it. While neither Virginia nor the United States is perfect; our system of government has served us better than most other nations’ system of government.

        1. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          Money isn’t speech. If money were a form of speech then the US Supreme Court should have struck down limits on campaign contributions. But they didn’t. So, money is speech sometimes but not all the time.

          Speech is the words that are written or the images that are videtaped. Money is the megaphone that let’s the few drown out the many.

          I have no problem banning political ads from TV and radio for the 60 days leading up to an election.

          I have no problem restricting the circulation of a newspaper that publishes political opinion pieces for the 60 days leading up to an election.

          I have no problem requiring “equal space” or “equal time” from newspapers and TV station if they want to run partisan ads.

          I have a big problem with a small number of people, companies and unions monopolizing the conversation by using their money as megaphones to blare their speech.

          I have a big problems with asshats like George Soros giving $385,000 to Tom Perriello.

          You’re missing the bigger point. Government is destined to egt bigger and bigger and more and more over-reaching so longs as it pays to be big and over-reach. The only way to shrink government and restore liberty to America is to get the money out of politics to a large extent.

          1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            Policy-wise I can agree with some of your argument. (I see a distinction between independent advocacy and campaign contributions.) With your proposed limits on both media and non-media companies speaking right before elections (obviously imposed after amendment of the US Constitution), my concern about some who can speak and some who cannot speak essentially goes away. Whether it would pass is another matter.

            Put the same pre-election gag on left, right and center; business, nonprofit, labor union; media company and non-media company and we have leveled the playing field. By lifting the restrictions on spending money on an issue of candidate, Citizens United leveled the playing field. By restricting all, you have also leveled the playing field.

            And change the Constitution. It’s been done many times and can be done again. There is a procedure for amending and unamending. I do think a constitutional convention would be a disaster as there would be no consensus on a new set of rules. It was touch and go as to whether both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would be agreed upon. I don’t think we’d be the close if we tried again. But anyone in Congress is free to introduce a constitutional amendment. Ditto with anyone in the General Assembly.

          2. Don, I share your concern about the role of big money as a corrupting force in politics. But I’m also concerned about the consequences of banning certain forms of political speech.

            If you would ban political ads and newspaper editorials for 60 days before an election, would you also ban news articles? How do you distinguish between an “editorial,” “analysis,” ridiculously biased news like what we increasingly see from the New York Times, Washington Post, and most of the broadcast media, and truly objective news — remembering, as Glenn Reynolds likes to quip, many journalists are just Democratic operatives with a byline?

            Would you ban blog news and commentary for 60 days before the election? Would you ban tweets? Would you ban YouTube videos? Given how political discourse is shifting to digital formats, would you also regulate Google and Facebook? I’d like to know your thoughts on where to draw the line between “big money” advertising and individual free speech.

        2. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          “While neither Virginia nor the United States is perfect; our system of government has served us better than most other nations’ system of government.”

          I wonder how the Americans who were enslaved from the ratification of our constitution through the end of the US Civil War felt about the benefits of living under our form of government. Or the Japanese Americans sent to camps during WWII. England abolished slavery in 1833 by passing a law. America abolished slaver in 1865 by fighting an apocalyptic war. Which government served its people better in that regard?

          Our form of government was the best in the world when it was formed between 1776 and 1789. But then the scammers, con artists, politicians for life and crony capitalists worked their way into the system. They resisted change to preserve the status quo that treats them so well.

          None of the founding fathers thought the Constitution should be static. It was meant to be changed. That was perhaps its most brilliant point. Our system of government demands change. Change is healthy. Those who thwart change are not patriotic or even proper adherents of our real system of government. They are anarchists spitting in the faces of the founding fathers perpetuating a status quo that no longer works.

  2. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Well, the federal constitution would remain supreme, and any Virginia changes would need to remain in that framework. Isn’t it the federal constitution you want to change? Although most of your concerns would require a change in human nature…I always loved that McNelly cartoon during the Reagan Administration, keying off the movie Casablanca, when David Stockman bursts into the casino, sees the President at the table, and is “shocked, shocked to find politics is going on here!”

    1. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      My point on the US Constitution was a set up for the rest of the blog articles regarding the possibility of a new Virginia Constitution. I believe that a national referendum asking for a significant curtailment of money in politics would pass by a wide margin. Certainly the US Constitution could be amended to reduce the influence of money in politics. There are many democratic countries which take these actions.

      The people want this and the mechanism exists to effect the change. However, the deep state’s funders and the hand puppets we call politicians don’t want to see the status quo changed. This will only change when the question of voting to control money in politics becomes an election time litmus test for every candidate.

      The current Virginia Constitution is far more deeply flawed than the US Constitution. However, the flaws are a bit harder to understand. Both constitutions allow deep pockets to fund the deep state. However, the Virginia Constitution thwarts the full exercise of democracy itself by insulating, isolating and perpetuating the politicians for life in the Virginia General Assembly.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Generally very good perspective but I have big problems with banning opinion or news articles in any way.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      To level the playing field and accomplish DJR’s goals, it would take a constitutional amendment.

Leave a Reply