On Wednesday 13 JAN 2021 we published In Congress Assembled: Why a Second Constitutional Convention is necessary for saving our republic. In that essay we stated that, barring any unforeseen circumstances, we would be publishing a follow-on piece. Here it is!
When our first Constitutional Convention was called to order in May of 1787 it was out of deep necessity. The full faith and credit of the United States was at stake, the individual states had fallen into bitter trade disputes, and two super powers were lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce. Any resemblance between those times and our own is pure happenstance. Just like it's pure happenstance that my tongue is now pressed firmly in my cheek writing the above.
The simple fact is that our fundamental concerns from 1887 to 2021 have changed very little, and if we do go back to the drawing board (as I hope we do) we will have to do so with the understanding that (just like in 1787) the results may not be at all what we like. In this essay I am going to put forth a version of the United States closer to what the original delegates were tasked to do in 1787, which was to amend the former Articles of Confederation. I invite (nay encourage) opposing contributions regarding this subject, and anyone who wishes to submit their own version of a future United States of America for publication (either attributed or anonymous) may do so by writing me at rwalters1965@gmail.com.
Nature of the Union:
Much like the original confederation (and not dissimilar to the original European Union) I view the future of the United States more like NATO than the centralized government we now have. There are certain benefits to military and trade allowances between the states, and even having a figurehead representative of the whole (a president). These were carefully considered and enshrined in the US Constitution as the federal balance between state and federal authority that was breached after the US Civil War, and has only eroded beyond recognition in the decades that have passed. This said, in my future United States, Congress would be unicameral and singularly represented by six senators chosen as each state sees fit, in three congressional cycles, who can serve no more than two consecutive six-year terms.
Since my Federal government would only have taxation authority to fund Common Defense, Foreign Missions, and Maintenance of the Federal government (and would require a super majority to accomplish that) there would be no need for a popular house to democratically represent the taxed; that would be accomplished at the state level. As far as common defense goes, the individual state militias would form a joint command structure (much like NATO has) in Washington. Membership in the United States would require liberal (but not unlimited) freedom of passage between all states to others. Extraterritorial trade however, would be a matter of the individual states, to include those states where goods and services must pass-through another.
The Presidency, the Vice Presidency and the Cabinet (S):
In my United States, the President of the United States would be the Head of State and the Commander in Chief of the federal military, and popularly elected for a four year term not to exceed two consecutive terms. The Vice President of the United States would be President of the Senate and head of the Union, and as such, would be given the responsibility of coordinating interstate affairs. The Vice President would be elected during the congress preceding the end of a sitting Vice President's term, meaning, that the senate would have two years to vet their selections and the states would have to elect senators of a caliber worthy of being the Head of Government as it were. Once elected by a super-majority, the Vice President could serve only one six year term, but could be eligible again in twelve years. The senate would have the power to consider nominees from outside their body, except those who have served as President of the United States. A Vice President would be eligible to run for president at the end of their term, but not during their term in office.
As you might have noticed, the Senate went from 100 to 300 members in this model. This is because, (like in a Westminster model parliament) cabinet positions (what will remain of them) will be filled by senators, and will only advise the President or Vice President respectively (as they do now) since certain departments such as State and Defense would go to the Presidency, while others like Interior, would go to the Vice Presidency, however since there will be very little in the way of federal purview, the executive functions would be minimal, and instead, would act more as a resource for the various states (much like advisory organs of The United Nations) prestige perhaps; but no power.
Taxation and the Cost of the Federal Government:
The senate would be empowered to raise funds for three things: Maintenance of the Federal Capital and its government in Washington D.C., an annual subscription for common defense; and an annual subscription for maintenance of diplomatic missions. Under peacetime operations (more on that in a bit) the United States would only maintain a standing Navy; the current functions of the Air force and Space Force would be transferred to the Navy, and the Marine Corps complement might be increased in the interest of strengthening tactical infantry defenses; all other ground warfare would devolve to the states and be subject to joint command as necessary (again, more on this later).
In revenue, the federal government would be able to derive taxes from foreign imports and exports, telecommunication taxes, tolls and fees. All other revenue would come from state subscriptions and these subscriptions would require (like all appropriations and debt ceilings) a 2/3rd super majority. The federal government would be able to borrow on behalf of the states however, all debt would have to be (as constitutionally provided) guaranteed by dedicated revenue. Monetary policy would be governed by supply and demand of bank notes and the federal government would be prohibited from borrowing against itself or other trusts. A good example of this is Social Security. Individual states might opt to join the Federal plan (or create their own or have none at all) but congress would not have the ability to use those funds either directly or as collateral for other loans, much like any other trust.
United States senators would be paid by their states at salaries and benefits decided by their states legislatures, they would thus, have little ability to affect their compensation. The President and Vice President would be considered part of the national government or common defense appropriations respectively.
War and Emergency Powers:
Taking a page out of ancient Rome, there may be times when emergency powers are need to address extraordinary occasions such as a direct attack against the common federation. In my version of the United States, there is no proactive military (only defense} thus if there were an attack on the union from without, war powers from within would be desirable. To evoke these, the President could request (and the Senate could approve by simple majority) a six-month binding allotment for full executive authority to the president. Thereafter, each six-month extension would require a super-majority continuance with the requisite funding provisions. These strident conditions should make military adventurism and activist warfare rather difficult to pursue.
Analysis:
Admittedly this proposal (which adheres to a strict revision of the former Articles of Confederation) is intentionally extreme for a reason. Only by remembering what we have lost, can we hope to regain some measure of its strengths.
That which we have lost in my opinion, is a basic idea of government. Up until the early 20th Century, the federal government was very small. How small? Thousands of employees (not millions) and many of them postal and customs/duties office workers, and members of the military. Presidents operated with a staff of about a dozen aides and secretaries. Now we have an entire office building for them (and their staffs, and the staffs' staff. and support personnel for the staffs' staffs' staff) and so on...
This said, our primary goal should be to ask ourselves what we want our government to be and what we want it to be doing. The huge federal bureaucracy for example, that is deemed "essential," is only essential (and has only become essential) since the beginning of the Twentieth Century, when we chose to become an imperial power. Prior to that, the need for any form of military industrial complex, surveillance and intelligence infrastructure and the like, was negligible. If you step back for a moment and think about this objectively, you will see there is a degree of truth to this thinking. If the United States were not meddling in other peoples' affairs for reasons noble, ignoble or indifferent, who would really want to attack us?
The irony in asking this question is that the answer we get is the government we got (wordplay intended) but choose not to follow: federalism! This is why our founders selected federalism in the first place. Our angst as a country is magnified by trying to force homogeneity on the whole country. Notice I use "country" not"nation" because the United States has never been (nor is it likely ever to be) a single nation in any political, historical or anthropological sense. As one current example, let's dip our toe into the murky waters of the institutional racism debate.
On one side, we have people of one nation, with one national identity, one concept of ethics, and one cultural baseline, utterly confused that another nation, with another national identity, a different concept of ethics, and a different cultural baseline, are unable to communicate their relative frustrations to each other after centuries of geographic cohabitation. No less than Lincoln saw this coming. When multiple nations coexist (think Ukrainians and Russians) it generally only works when one nation dominates another. Otherwise... And this multi-nationalism isn't confined to race; it permeates (and has permeated) our country from the start, even within regions. The very existence of Rhode Island is a testament to this idea, as is Delaware.
Our founders had hoped to mitigate this multi-nationalism by allowing the states to embrace their individual nationalism (if applicable) in moderate doses; a reality which still has some bones in our times. If we want a peaceful coexistence with our fellow states, we have to re-institutionalize the concept of state sovereignty to a greater not lesser degree in my opinion. And I think that is true of countries all over the world. The efficiency, desirability and effectiveness of empires has been dubious for aeons, because their logistical limits will eventually stress to the point of collapse. The question is, do you reinforce what you have in a sane and systematic manner, or do you just take turns holding up the crumbling walls until it is so decayed, it collapses on top of everyone's heads.
For the past thirty years we have been doing the latter, and our collective arms are getting tired and the strain's beginning to show. We either come together and find a consensus on how to remodel the edifice, or as surely as the walls went up, they will come down on our collective heads in a crash, and it will not be pleasant. For me that remodel looks like a series of states (perhaps not even the states we currently have} choosing the government that best suits their needs in the manner that we announced to the British Empire and the world at our inception, and enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. We have been debating these same arguments for over two-hundred and fifty years; isn't time we considered a truce?
Comentarios