Change the Constitution
Caryl Rosenthal
September 09, 2007
Everytime political catastrophes come up that could never have been anticipated, there comes a cry from the prairies or wherever, to change the Constitution to reflect what some folks think it really means.
For example, there are those who want the Constitution to leave out whole segments of our society by demanding an amendment to that remarkable document, calling for marriage between a man and a woman. But, should the document spell out whether it means a man and a used-to-be-man who is now a woman, or how does the Constitution tell? If a used-to-be-woman marries a born woman or a used-to-be-man-but-now-a-woman, decide upon a church wedding, is it a crime for the minister who performed the ceremony if, in fact, the couple so convincingly, pulled it off that it was impossible to tell?
Or does the plastic surgeon who made the switch go to prison, and for how long? Does that mean that every couple applying for a marriage license has to prove his/her sexual origins? And to whom? After all, the mentality of those who make these demands are more against someone getting away with something than the original insult.
Then, there are those who are in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade, but that is a different issue. In percentages, the numbers of women that it affects is infinitesimal compared to the outraged who march in favor of the repeal.
After the master manipulation of the electoral college following the 2000 election, there were those who called for an amendment repealing that clause of the Constitution, and while I don’t disagree with the sentiment in ridding our systems of outdated frufru that bogs down our national attention, those who abused it, of course, want nothing to change in that regard.
Regarding the clause concerning the requirement of the president of the United States be native born, there were those who wanted a repeal so that Arnold Governator could run for the highest office, but enthusiasm for that went by the wayside when he began acting more like a Democrat than the Democrats.
Another that I couldn’t agree more with is repealing the amendment limiting the president to two terms because that is, like the electoral college, something that came back to bite us as a people, in the butt – not for political reasons, but because he who has been reelected is lame duck for four more years.
Now, I know that most Americans assume their president has the welfare of the country at heart and only acts in furtherance of what is best for all of us. We wish. The administration holding the highest office in the world for the last seven plus years, has no idea what is in the best interests of this country, much less the ability or desire to implement it. This bunch seems bent upon getting as much as they can done in whatever time is left when there is no one to stop it, nor anywhere to complain.
So, of course, I have some suggestions. We need to repeal term limits and vote in or out based upon performance. Length of time in office should not go by the calendar, and that means none.
In parliamentary countries, prime ministers stay in office until they screw up, then, out. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we let someone get away with what, for example, George Bush and his cronies, have gotten away with ever since he placed the crown on his own head, and now he gets a free pass until a date certain when an election comes along.
Why do we have to put up with such incompetence because of an arbitrary date, when the consequences will haunt us for decades to come. We have two Supremes who might not make it until that arbitrary date: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who suffers from colon cancer and is well into her ‘70’s and John Paul Stevens, an octogenarian, both of whom sit on the left side of the spectrum, and they will be replaced by two young reactionary men, who will grace us with their presence until the next millennium, regardless of how much sense the country regains in the interim.
We are living in scary times, but it is our own fault.
For example, there are those who want the Constitution to leave out whole segments of our society by demanding an amendment to that remarkable document, calling for marriage between a man and a woman. But, should the document spell out whether it means a man and a used-to-be-man who is now a woman, or how does the Constitution tell? If a used-to-be-woman marries a born woman or a used-to-be-man-but-now-a-woman, decide upon a church wedding, is it a crime for the minister who performed the ceremony if, in fact, the couple so convincingly, pulled it off that it was impossible to tell?
Or does the plastic surgeon who made the switch go to prison, and for how long? Does that mean that every couple applying for a marriage license has to prove his/her sexual origins? And to whom? After all, the mentality of those who make these demands are more against someone getting away with something than the original insult.
Then, there are those who are in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade, but that is a different issue. In percentages, the numbers of women that it affects is infinitesimal compared to the outraged who march in favor of the repeal.
After the master manipulation of the electoral college following the 2000 election, there were those who called for an amendment repealing that clause of the Constitution, and while I don’t disagree with the sentiment in ridding our systems of outdated frufru that bogs down our national attention, those who abused it, of course, want nothing to change in that regard.
Regarding the clause concerning the requirement of the president of the United States be native born, there were those who wanted a repeal so that Arnold Governator could run for the highest office, but enthusiasm for that went by the wayside when he began acting more like a Democrat than the Democrats.
Another that I couldn’t agree more with is repealing the amendment limiting the president to two terms because that is, like the electoral college, something that came back to bite us as a people, in the butt – not for political reasons, but because he who has been reelected is lame duck for four more years.
Now, I know that most Americans assume their president has the welfare of the country at heart and only acts in furtherance of what is best for all of us. We wish. The administration holding the highest office in the world for the last seven plus years, has no idea what is in the best interests of this country, much less the ability or desire to implement it. This bunch seems bent upon getting as much as they can done in whatever time is left when there is no one to stop it, nor anywhere to complain.
So, of course, I have some suggestions. We need to repeal term limits and vote in or out based upon performance. Length of time in office should not go by the calendar, and that means none.
In parliamentary countries, prime ministers stay in office until they screw up, then, out. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we let someone get away with what, for example, George Bush and his cronies, have gotten away with ever since he placed the crown on his own head, and now he gets a free pass until a date certain when an election comes along.
Why do we have to put up with such incompetence because of an arbitrary date, when the consequences will haunt us for decades to come. We have two Supremes who might not make it until that arbitrary date: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who suffers from colon cancer and is well into her ‘70’s and John Paul Stevens, an octogenarian, both of whom sit on the left side of the spectrum, and they will be replaced by two young reactionary men, who will grace us with their presence until the next millennium, regardless of how much sense the country regains in the interim.
We are living in scary times, but it is our own fault.
Print
Email
