Another burst of US Constitutional amendment coming up?

[lpetrich]

History Teaches that Constitutional Reforms Come in Waves. We May Be Approaching One Now. - POLITICO

"In U.S. history, previous periods of gridlock and partisanship eventually gave way to bursts of constitutional amendments."

By the authors of The People’s Constitution | The New Press by John F. Kowal, Wilfred U. Codrington III
"200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union"

"The 233-year story of how the American people have taken an imperfect constitution—the product of compromises and an artifact of its time—and made it more democratic"

Back to Politico. The authors note the present period of gridlock and partisanship, and they ask if that is the path to major reforms.

We’ve studied the history of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution and found that most of them come in waves after long periods of constitutional inaction. What’s more, those short bursts of activity typically have followed periods of deep division and gridlock like ours. In fact, history suggests that periods of extreme political polarization, when the normal channels of legal change are blocked off due to partisan gridlock and regional divides, can usher in periods of constitutional reform to get the political system functioning again.

What this suggests is that a new round of constitutional revisions might be possible in the not-too-distant future.

They note several previous periods:

1789 to 1804: the Bill of Rights (10 amendments), 11, 12

1865 to 1870: after the Civil War: abolition of slavery, civil rights: 13, 14, 15

"And then there was another four decades of polarization and gridlock, marked by the pervasive corruption and vast inequities of the Gilded Age."

1909 to 1920: Progressive Era: income tax, popular election of Senators, Prohibition, women's votes: 16, 17, 18, 19 (Prohibition later revoked)

1964 to 1971: Sixties Era: prohibition of poll taxes, revision of Presidential succession, lowering voting age to 18: 24, 25, 26

There were some that the authors omitted, it must be noted, especially between the Progressive and Sixties Eras.

 

[lpetrich]

The authors continue:

Today, we find ourselves five decades into the latest dry spell. After the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s, many progressives concluded that the Constitution’s arduous amending process is not worth the effort. For their part, conservative activists have launched campaigns to win a balanced budget amendment and other ideological policies, which has only bolstered a sense among many that it’s unwise and even dangerous to tinker with the framers’ handiwork.

But this sense of defeatism is not new. In 1904, the Washington Post dismissed reformers’ “amendatory schemes,” offering the hard-boiled take that “our fundamental law is practically unamendable by peaceful and regular methods.” And yet, just a half-decade later, that pessimistic prognosis was proven wrong when Congress proposed the first of the Progressive Era amendments.

The presence of certain factors that have prompted past generations of Americans to push for constitutional amendments suggests that a new wave may already be building. Discontent over controversial Supreme Court rulings, for instance, has proven to be a predictable galvanizer of amending activity in previous eras.

They then state that 7 amendments were passed to reverse Supreme Court rulings.

What might come next? Revoking Citizens United? Abolishing the Senate?

During periods of gridlock, states sometimes look for workarounds for some of the Constitution’s most problematic provisions, and that experimentation is another driver of constitutional amendments. In the early 20th century, when the Senate blocked an amendment giving voters the right to directly elect its members (a power originally given to state legislatures), reformers in the states responded with measures such as the Oregon Plan, which allowed voters to express their Senate preference in a popular referendum. By establishing a de facto system of popular election in much of the country, they forced the Senate’s hand.

A recent one is the National Popular Vote initiative. If enough states agree, they will award their electors to the winner of the popular vote for President.

It may be hard to imagine, but today’s political impasse may eventually give way to a new governing coalition. Look at the Gilded Age a century ago, when mounting social problems fueled a rare consensus for reform. Then, as now, economic inequality was widening as restraints on corporate power eroded and moneyed interests dominated our elections. The nation was polarized along regional lines that mirror today’s red state-blue state divide. Immigration was changing the country to the alarm of traditionalists. Elections were won by narrow margins, producing gridlock. And all the while, a conservative Supreme Court stood in the way of needed change. In time, the pressure for reform caused a dramatic leftward swing in national sentiment that few saw coming — an earthquake that divided the Republicans, lifted the Democrats and led to the adoption of four amendments after years of fruitless advocacy.

The authors say that it looks a lot like the present day.

 

[lpetrich]

 List of amendments to the United States Constitution
 Cyclical theory (United States history)

Arthurs Schlesinger Sr and Jr proposed that US history alternates between two kinds of phases: liberal and conservative, reform and stagnation, increasing democracy and containing it, public purpose and private interest, concern with human rights and concern with property rights.

Each kind of phase generates the other kind. Liberal phases suffer society-scale activism burnout and make conservative ones, and conservative ones suffer from unsolved social problems that provoke efforts to solve them that make liberal phases.

Samuel Huntington proposed that the US has periods of creedal-passion activism, efforts to implement the "American Creed" of government: "In terms of American beliefs, government is supposed to be egalitarian, participatory, open, noncoercive, and responsive to the demands of individuals and groups. Yet no government can be all these things and still remain a government."

The US has been dominated by two political parties for most of its history, but they get shaken up every so often, producing six party systems so far. Each party system has characteristic platforms and constituencies for each party.

Stephen Skowronek proposes that the US has had several political regimes, each with a dominant and an opposition party. A reconstructing President helps a party come into dominance, and he is succeeded by articulating Presidents in his party. Eventually the political regime starts to fall apart, and his party gets disjunctive Presidents. Through all this time, the opposition party sometimes gets the Presidency as preemptive Presidents, and later ones' efforts may foreshadow coming regimes.

I must also note periods of race-relations upheaval.

 

[lpetrich]

Now where the amendments fit in.

• Lib Crd - Revolution and Constitution - Bill of Rights (1-10) at the end
• Con PS1 - Hamiltonian Federalism
• Lib - Jefferson Era
• Con - Era of Good Feelings
• Lib Crd PS2 - Jackson Era
• Con Slaveowner Dominance
• Lib RcUp PS3 - Civil War Era - 13, 14, 15 mid to end
• Con - Gilded Age
• Lib Crd PS4 - Progressive Era - 16, 17, 18, 19 mid to end
• Con - Roaring Twenties
• Lib PS5 - New Deal Era
• Con - Fifties Era
• Lib Crd RcUp - Sixties Era - 24, 25, 26 over it
• Con - Gilded Age II

So the US is due for another liberal period, and a creedal-passion period at that.

Though the authors are right about several of the Constitutional amendments, several more do not fit very well.

Of the authors' first cluster of amendments, the 11th one, states immune to out-of-state lawsuits, is in the Hamilton era and the 12th one, a fix to electing the President, is in the Jefferson era. The 12th one was passed in response to an election deadlock in 1800.

The 20th one, Presidential succession, and the 21st one, revocation of Prohibition, straddle the Roaring Twenties and the New Deal Era.

The 22nd one, Presidential term limits, straddles the New Deal Era and the Fifties Era.

The 23rd one, electoral votes for the District of Columbia, seems like something out of the Sixties Era, but it was passed late in the Fifties Era. Also around then, Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states.

The most recent one, the 27th one (Changes to Congressmembers' pay are only in effect after the next Rep election), was floating around since 1789. It was enacted in 1992, nearly 203 years later.

 

[Rhea]

I thought this was a very interesting article. One can see why things like constitutional changes do come in waves. We certainly have a few things to fix!

 

[lpetrich]

I thought this was a very interesting article. One can see why things like constitutional changes do come in waves. We certainly have a few things to fix!

Yes, we are overdue for another liberal period, another big period of reform. A period like the Sixties Era or the New Deal Era or the Progressive Era or the Civil War Era or the Jackson Era.

Conservative periods, like this one, Gilded Age II, suffer from accumulating social problems that society's elites are reluctant to do much about, if they decide to do anything about them, or even if they accept that those problems are real problems. This provokes efforts to solve them, efforts that get stronger and stronger until they start a new liberal era.

I remember hoping that the Clinton Presidency might be the end of this conservative era. But he completely wimped out. After making all these promises of nice things when running for President, he refused to do very much. The gays-in-the-military issue was an embarrassing flop, and his health-care plan was an even bigger flop. It wasn't anything simple like Medicare for All or even Obamacare.

The right wing hated him as if he was some usurper, and they made big issues out of things that could hardly be called big scandals -- and they went against their cherished beliefs and principles when they did so. Like making a big issue out of Bill Clinton firing the White House travel agents. They normally object to wasteful government spending and they normally consider employers absolutely sovereign over their workplaces, having the absolute right to run their businesses however they want. But they violated those principles just so they could have something to hate about him.

I also remember hoping that about the Obama Presidency. But he wimped out there also. I remember the Occupy movement. Although the original Occupy Wall Street camp got a lot of imitators, these camps lasted only a few months before they were shut down by the local park authorities. What I find very annoying was the total lack of interest in finding new campsites.

Now there is a progressive movement which is insistent in going beyond vague rhetoric about hope and change -- it's wanting things like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I thought this was a very interesting article. One can see why things like constitutional changes do come in waves. We certainly have a few things to fix!

Yes, we are overdue for another liberal period, another big period of reform. A period like the Sixties Era or the New Deal Era or the Progressive Era or the Civil War Era or the Jackson Era.

Conservative periods, like this one, Gilded Age II, suffer from accumulating social problems that society's elites are reluctant to do much about, if they decide to do anything about them, or even if they accept that those problems are real problems. This provokes efforts to solve them, efforts that get stronger and stronger until they start a new liberal era.

I remember hoping that the Clinton Presidency might be the end of this conservative era. But he completely wimped out. After making all these promises of nice things when running for President, he refused to do very much. The gays-in-the-military issue was an embarrassing flop, and his health-care plan was an even bigger flop. It wasn't anything simple like Medicare for All or even Obamacare.

The right wing hated him as if he was some usurper, and they made big issues out of things that could hardly be called big scandals -- and they went against their cherished beliefs and principles when they did so. Like making a big issue out of Bill Clinton firing the White House travel agents. They normally object to wasteful government spending and they normally consider employers absolutely sovereign over their workplaces, having the absolute right to run their businesses however they want. But they violated those principles just so they could have something to hate about him.

I also remember hoping that about the Obama Presidency. But he wimped out there also. I remember the Occupy movement. Although the original Occupy Wall Street camp got a lot of imitators, these camps lasted only a few months before they were shut down by the local park authorities. What I find very annoying was the total lack of interest in finding new campsites.

Now there is a progressive movement which is insistent in going beyond vague rhetoric about hope and change -- it's wanting things like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.

I'm sorry to say, but it's not going to happen. The left's side is just too small. The senate is tied. We have a majority in the house by 5 votes. And of course the conservatives control the supreme court. And rather than trying to increase our tent, we're actively pushing the few fringe democrats out (Sinema).

The problem with the left in my view, is that we expect to have a few starts (Clinton, Obama, and etc.) to do all the work. Clinton tried to roll out health care for all. It was the Clinton administration that promoted the greatest health care changes in our history after he was elected. He focused incredible presidential capital into it. It stalled due to intense obstruction from the right. Then the dems didn't bother to come out to vote in the house/senate vote; and the dems got crushed. If dems can't be bothered to vote, our agenda will be crushed.

 

[lpetrich]

Bursts of constitutional amendment, creedal passion, and race-relations upheaval

[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Liberal period[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Conservative period[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Revolution, Constitution[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Hamilton Federalism[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jefferson[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Good Feelings[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jackson[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Slaveowner Dominance[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Civil War, Reconstruction[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]RcUp[/TD]
[TD]Gilded Age[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Progressive Era[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Roaring 20s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Deal[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]50s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]60s[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD]RcUp[/TD]
[TD]Gilded Age II[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Jarhyn]

Bursts of constitutional amendment, creedal passion, and race-relations upheaval

[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Liberal period[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Conservative period[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Revolution, Constitution[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Hamilton Federalism[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jefferson[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Good Feelings[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jackson[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Slaveowner Dominance[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Civil War, Reconstruction[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]RcUp[/TD]
[TD]Gilded Age[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Progressive Era[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Roaring 20s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Deal[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]50s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]60s[/TD]
[TD]Amnd
[/TD]
[TD]CrdP[/TD]
[TD]RcUp[/TD]
[TD]Gilded Age II[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I am having trouble following the syntax of this table and parsing it to a graph.

 

[Gospel]

I'm in over my head on this but something tells me we may actually be in for a bad turn and not a good one this time around. Every run has an end.

 

[lpetrich]

I am having trouble following the syntax of this table and parsing it to a graph.

It's liberal period, whether that period had a burst of Constitutional amendments, whether that period had a burst of creedal passion, whether that period had an upheaval in race relations, and the following conservative period.

 

[Elixir]

I am having trouble following the syntax of this table and parsing it to a graph.

It's liberal period, whether that period had a burst of Constitutional amendments, whether that period had a burst of creedal passion, whether that period had an upheaval in race relations, and the following conservative period.

Like Gospel, I feel like the extreme right senses it coming, and will do literally anything to stop a liberal wave, including destroying the Country.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am having trouble following the syntax of this table and parsing it to a graph.

It's liberal period, whether that period had a burst of Constitutional amendments, whether that period had a burst of creedal passion, whether that period had an upheaval in race relations, and the following conservative period.

I see, now. Thank you. It might be better served as a timeline? But I'm not the (totally not an ex?-bookie) between us.

 

[lpetrich]

I'm in over my head on this but something tells me we may actually be in for a bad turn and not a good one this time around. Every run has an end.

Very understandable. The US had a previous time of great division: the years before the Civil War. Southern politicans wanted to protect slavery no matter what, and many Northerners grumbled about the "slave power" or "slaveocracy" having undue influence over the Federal Gov't.

Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’ - NOEMA

We predicted political upheaval in America in the 2020s.
This is why it’s here and what we can do to temper it.
By Jack A. Goldstone and Peter Turchin
September 10, 2020

Then going into detail about how Britain escaped revolution in the 1830's and the US in the 1930's.

Part of doing so was Prime Minster Lord Grey threatening to pack the House of Lords and President FDR threatening to pack the Supreme Court. Though FDR's effort failed, the Supreme Court stopped challenging him.

The formula in both cases was clear and simple. First, the leader who was trying to preserve the past social order despite economic change and growing violence was replaced by a new leader who was willing to undertake much-needed reforms. Second, while the new leader leveraged his support to force opponents to give in to the necessary changes, there was no radical revolution; violence was eschewed and reforms were carried out within the existing institutional framework.

Third, the reforms were pragmatic. Various solutions were tried, and the new leaders sought to build broad support for reforms, recognizing that national strength depended on forging majority support for change, rather than forcing through measures that would provide narrow factional or ideologically-driven victories. The bottom line in both cases was that adapting to new social and technological realities required having the wealthy endure some sacrifices while the opportunities and fortunes of ordinary working people were supported and strengthened; the result was to raise each nation to unprecedented wealth and power.

People are now talking about packing the Supreme Court, and a few people are talking about abolishing the Senate. I've also seen a proposal for making the Senate mixed-member, with at-large members chosen to make the Senate proportional by party. This is a way of packing the Senate while keeping 2 seats per state.

 

[lpetrich]

Now there is a progressive movement which is insistent in going beyond vague rhetoric about hope and change -- it's wanting things like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.

I'm sorry to say, but it's not going to happen. The left's side is just too small. The senate is tied. We have a majority in the house by 5 votes. And of course the conservatives control the supreme court. And rather than trying to increase our tent, we're actively pushing the few fringe democrats out (Sinema).

So one ought to focus on electing more Democrats at the expense of all other priorities? If the Democrats elected are cowardly, Republican-lite compromisers, then it may be hard to get much support for the party. The base won't be enthusiastic about it, and other voters may find it hard to tell the difference.

The problem with the left in my view, is that we expect to have a few starts (Clinton, Obama, and etc.) to do all the work. Clinton tried to roll out health care for all. It was the Clinton administration that promoted the greatest health care changes in our history after he was elected. He focused incredible presidential capital into it. It stalled due to intense obstruction from the right. Then the dems didn't bother to come out to vote in the house/senate vote; and the dems got crushed. If dems can't be bothered to vote, our agenda will be crushed.

All that shows is that it is not enough to elect good Presidents. They cannot do much without a good Congress.

That was the calculation of the founders of Brand New Congress, some Bernie Sanders campaigners who wondered what to do next after it became evident that their candidate was not going to win the Democratic nomination for President. They would run a slate of 400+ candidates for Congress with a unified Bernie-Sanders-like platform. They ended up with only 30 candidates for the 2018 Congressional elections, and only one of them won: AOC.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So one ought to focus on electing more Democrats at the expense of all other priorities? If the Democrats elected are cowardly, Republican-lite compromisers, then it may be hard to get much support for the party. The base won't be enthusiastic about it, and other voters may find it hard to tell the difference.

The problem with the left in my view, is that we expect to have a few starts (Clinton, Obama, and etc.) to do all the work. Clinton tried to roll out health care for all. It was the Clinton administration that promoted the greatest health care changes in our history after he was elected. He focused incredible presidential capital into it. It stalled due to intense obstruction from the right. Then the dems didn't bother to come out to vote in the house/senate vote; and the dems got crushed. If dems can't be bothered to vote, our agenda will be crushed.

All that shows is that it is not enough to elect good Presidents. They cannot do much without a good Congress.

That was the calculation of the founders of Brand New Congress, some Bernie Sanders campaigners who wondered what to do next after it became evident that their candidate was not going to win the Democratic nomination for President. They would run a slate of 400+ candidates for Congress with a unified Bernie-Sanders-like platform. They ended up with only 30 candidates for the 2018 Congressional elections, and only one of them won: AOC.

It's real simple, if the dems push out the "cowardly, republican lite compromisers" that are located in conservative areas then we will our slim majority; and will not be able to pass even a compromised agenda; let alone a large agenda. And the republicans will win. The primary reason why the republicans have won so many elections over the last 30 years despite having fewer numbers is that they are willing to have a larger tent than the left.