Lost in the When will another woman run fray.

So over at Salon, Katharine Mieszkowski writing on Broadsheet wrote THIS

With Hillary Clinton less likely every day to be the Democratic nominee for president, the guessing game is to try to predict when the first American woman will serve as commander in chief.

I have seen much more of this discussion lately, wherein feminist commentators discuss when we will see the next woman to run for President, and whether or not it will be another "generation" till it occurs like the 24 years between Ferraro and Clinton.

I have several issues with this discussion. First, dabbling within the identity politics kiddie pool, this commentary seems to almost lament the fact that Clinton's not getting the nomination is going to set women back for another generation. How this operates I do not know, and is rarely explained. This line of commentary does not assess real factors, like the differences in the numbers of women politicians in 1984 and 2008. I am assuming that there has been a real increase in the number of women politicians holding potentially presidential springboard offices since 1984. In the specific article above, the author describes a hypothetical next woman presidential candidate with the admonishment that "she might not even exist." I am sorry, but Kathy Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, and Claire McCaskill are all future potential presidential candidates for the Democrats. At least, they should consider themselves such.

Another issue I have with this feminist handwringing is that, again playing identity politics, blacks have NEVER gotten as close as Ferraro did in 84, or as Obama has now. A fair question is who would be the next black candidate in the position of Clinton or Obama? To be fair, I would say Deval Patrick and Harold Ford might be in that position, but I think neither are as close as the three women I mentioned.

War and Resources

One thing that occurred to me this morning upon reading Andrew Leonard's latest post at How the World Works at Salon was how wrong those who predicted resource wars have been. The standard claim, grossly oversimplifying, is that as resources run out, countries would go to war to secure resources necessary to their economies. Resources like oil. I personally do not know if we are at peak oil or not. I just don't feel qualified to make that determination. I do know, however, that the United States is not going to fight wars to secure oil in the future. The basic calculus has to be the cost of a war to secure oil versus the price of alternatives to an oil based economy. The reality is that the cost of war, including the physical costs and reputational costs, is simply too high for such a war to be an effective instrument of policy. It will simply be cheaper to develop alternatives in the United States and on the world market than to use an expensive blunt instrument of state policy such as war to secure energy for the economy of the future.

What of the Iraq war? I know many on the left see the Iraq war as exactly the type of war I am saying will never happen. The fact of the matter is that the primary motivations for the Iraq War did not develop out of the board rooms of the administration's oil buddies, but instead came from the think tanks of the neoconservative hawks. The claimed benefit of using Iraqi oil to pay our costs in the was not a motivating factor, but instead just some lagniappe.

CNN's Headline T-Shirts

CNN.com now has a feature where you can order a T-Shirt with a headline from cnn.com on it. This makes me wonder if now that they have an even greater financial interest in their headlines, are they going to start coming up with loony headlines simply to sell T-shirts? I think we have the first evidence in a headline they have up today to a story that has been around for a couple of days. The headline says "Crazy ants chew through electrical cords." The story has been about an ant infestation in Houston, Texas.

Frankly, I think this is a great development for news organizations.

Banner Year for Democrats?

A banner year for Democrats or a banner year for Liberals?

A lot of people in the proverbial liberal blogosphere have looked at the recent victory by the Democrat in the Mississippi special election as evidence of the impending liberal landslide in the fall. I think many in the blogosphere are conflating a Democratic landslide in the fall with a liberal landslide in the fall. They are two different things, and this distinction needs to be constantly kept in mind or liberals are setting themselves for grand disappointment in 2009 when their agenda doesn't get enacted in its entirety. Now, normally, I don't care about individuals' levels of disappointment. However, in this instance, I think this issue is important because of what it can mean for the Democratic party. To provide an alternative to the Republicans the Democratic party needs to show itself to be different in many ways. Simply becoming doctrinaire and dogmatic as to what the party believes is a surefire way to repeat the mistakes of the Republicans. The Democratic party needs to be inclusive of those more moderate to conservative members of the party who are going to be entering it as the Republicans continue to collapse. Part of the distinction the Democrats can draw is as a party that respects intellectual and political difference within reason and as a place of respectful discussion of issues and national policy. I am not talking about tolerating Joe Lieberman's though. Lieberman is a specific example of someone who has used his position as a Democrat (in the past) to attack other Democrats, and the Democratic agenda, by playing to the repentant sinner archetype in American politics.

A link

I want to throw this up and I will comment on it after while.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/autos/gas_engine_improvements/index.htm

I put this up a week or so ago, because what I found most interesting was the "Experts" cited in the article. All of them are from the American automobile manufacturers. No independent experts, no Japanese experts, no German experts. All of these "experts" come from companies who have been hemorrhaging money for some time now, and whose primary products are singularly unsuited to a world of high gas prices. Of course they are going to reach the conclusions they reach in the article, that the gasoline engine is here to stay. If you are GM and you don't have 10 years experience building hybrids like Toyota, you are going to see hybrid technology as expensive and complicated. The article was hilarious.

Oil Independence

I think it is time we change our rhetoric on oil independence. It has been common since 9/11 for many people to talk about the need for foreign oil independence because the money going to the middle east helps fund terrorism. On a geopolitical level, this logic makes sense. In fact, some version of this idea has been around since at least the 1970s with the first oil shocks, in that it has been viewed as a bad thing for the United States to be so dependent upon foreign oil. I think it is time for a change in the way we think about this issue though. Namely, we need to stop talking about getting off foreign oil, or achieving foreign oil independence, and start talking about achieving oil independence in general.

It seems readily apparent that tying our economy to one commodity such as petroleum has been a terribly bad idea as we begin to see the effects of that choice upon the broader economy. Reduced consumer spending is going to become a reality as long as we live in a period of the 100 dollar fill up. It is obvious to me as well that slowly things will simply change. Humans have lived through periods of expensive energy before, namely any period before the invention of the automobile and the exploitation of petroleum as a means to power those automobiles, and will be able to adjust to a new reality of expensive petroleum based energy sources. It is likely though, that this period will be economically painful. These reasons make the necessity finding new energy bases for our economy imperative. One place I think we should start is instead of talking about independence from foreign oil, we should be talking about moving away from using oil altogether. Changing our rhetoric will be easy. However, I do not know how we will ultimately achieve the specific change in policy, and at the risk of sounding flippant, I am sure something will come up.

What I mean more accurately is increasing costs of petroleum energy sources make alternatives much more viable as technological and market development reduce costs of those alternatives. The result of this is two cost lines on a graph, one the increasing cost of oil based energy sources and the other a decreasing cost of bringing certain technologies to market that will coalesce around a new point that will be how society then becomes based. For example, from say 1920 to 1960, roughly, trains and streetcars were the primary mode of transportation for many people in this country whether locally or long distance. Following the beginning of construction of the interstate highway system, and all federal highways in general, and the development of the jet liner, the system of transit in this country moved to an automobile/bus/airplane equilibrium. We are now in a position, due to rising oil prices, in which that equilibrium is unsustainable, and will change again.

Hopefully it will change back to trains.

I like trains.

Okay to be Racist!

So, talkingpointsmemo.com has the headline up that Obama loses working class whites to Clinton in a landslide.

What is interesting to me about this to me is that I think the Jeremiah Wright business has obviously hurt Obama amongst working class white voters, but not quite in the way most people think. Frankly, I think that the Jeremiah Wright business has given working class voters a reason to vote on their baser instincts. Namely, voting out of racism. Any squeamishness those voters would have had about Obama before could have been swallowed to vote for him in absence of the Wright controversy. However, since Wright has been all over the news, those voters can now say to themselves and the media, well I really don't agree with Wright, so I am not voting for Obama for that reason. In reality they were uneasy voting for a black guy in the first place, and are just using Wright as convenient excuse. The reason I believe this to be true is that if Wright was really as damaging to Obama overall as it appears based off Obama's loss amongst working class whites, then Obama would have lost whites across the board, and just not within that one subset of the white vote. Obviously, Obama hasn't lost support amongst whites across the board, so it leads me to think that the Reverend Wright business is operating only amongst working class whites for a reason beyond just what Wright has said. The intervening variable I believe is operating is latent working class white racism. The Wright controversy has made it okay to express that racism by giving it the veneer of reasoned argument of "well I really disagree with what Wright said."

On another note, I was listening to one of the things Wright said at the national press club about the way white kids and black kids learn and think. At one point, Wright claimed that white kids primarily think and learn with the left brain, whereas black kids think and learn with the right brain. I trust that Wright is educated enough to have read a study on this point somewhere. The problem with this logic, and any study designed to show this, is that it is impossible to prove. Well, maybe not impossible, but damn near. In complicated bio-chemical reactions like what takes place in the brain, one would expect to find some type of structure that leads to this claimed differentiation. However, I almost guarantee no such a morphological difference exists between the brains of white and black children. I suppose if one really wanted to test this proposition, one could try teaching children of both races the same topic and use one of them fancy machines (MRI? EKG?, I dunno, hence fancy machines) to see if there is any difference in the areas of the brains stimulated by that topic. I would be willing to make a hefty bet that there wouldn't be such a difference.

Talking to Iran

Lately, it seems that there has been some folks calling for the Bush administration to talk with Iran. I know that during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings several Democrats brought up this point, and that Obama also has this as a central point on how he would conduct foreign policy. While I do agree that normalizing diplomatic relations would probably be a good idea, I do have some qualms. Well, really only one qualm.

Do we really want the Bush Administration of all groups to begin those talks? Is no one concerned about what they might say or how bad they might screw this up? Wouldn't it be better to wait until a more responsible and sober administration took office to begin a major diplomatic initiative?

Like the earlier racism post, maybe I will get back to this later.

One more thought about the 2nd Amendment

At the end of my post about the 2nd amendment, I kind of let things hanging in the air. I had another thought about those fanatical supporters of the 2nd amendment. While I have already talked about how I think 2nd amendment supporters are cowards who don't really believe their own logic, this cowardice can be seen yet again in their claim that the 2nd amendment is there to defend all the other amendments. Take an example that has been ongoing for most of the Bush Administration: Federal warrantless wiretapping and repeated violations of the 4th amendment. In no way does having a firearm prevent the government from engaging in activities that violate that amendment. Furthermore, if you had a firearm and a illegal search of your home and person is occurring in front of you, shooting the officer is still murder. No court has recognized an affirmative right to defend one's interpretation of the other amendments of the Constitution. Attempting to do so would still put one in other legal jeopardy.

This point about the 2nd defending all the other amendments could be stood on its head. Just as the 2nd allegedly defends the others, so do the others defend the 2nd. Without the 4th, the government could know exactly where all firearms are at all times, assuming the feasibility of a monitoring regime. Without the 1st, supporters of the 2nd could not organize politically to defend their rights, such as they conceptualize them to exist, under the 2nd. Without the the 5th and the 6th amendments, gun owners could not defend their rights in court such as the use of deadly force to protect themselves and others, or even their right to litigate their interpretations of the 2nd.

Well, I feel like I have beaten topic into the ground. I am sure I will have more on this topic in the future.

Are they going to hurt us, Walter? No Donnie. These men are cowards.

You know something that really chaps my ass. Fundamentally, almost all Americans are nihilists. They believe in nothing. Everyone is a cafeteria everything. A little from this philosophy, religion, or political beliefs, a little from that. Frankly, it is kind of disgusting. Why this is, I don't know. Could just be the fact we live in a post modern age or that beliefs have become too dangerous. How could ideas become too dangerous? Ideology can destroy the world now, but does it really operationalize down to individuals not having personal beliefs? Do people really not believe things because those beliefs aggregated could lead to horrible consequences like nuclear wars? I think that people don't have fundamental beliefs because having such are too painful on a much more personal level. Having beliefs is painful because beliefs generally require sacrifice in one way or another. Most Americans don't want to sacrifice anything, if at all possible.

Maybe that is all wrong, maybe Americans are not fundamentally nihilistic, or maybe not for the reasons I propose. This was just something I was thinking about this morning.

Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

While I still have that other question about race to develop into a much larger post, I wanted to take a moment to discuss some things I was thinking about the 2nd amendment.

A decision is pending in the Heller v. D.C. case, and that has made me think about the amendment again. It seems likely that the conservative members of the Court will interpret the Amendment to allow an individual right to own guns. This is the true crux of this case, as a finding in this direction will then allow the conservative majority to overturn the D.C. handgun prohibition. In light of the conservative majority's potential ruling, I got to thinking about the ramifications of what the Court might do.

The question seems to me to revolve around what will actually change in the U.S. if the Court finds an individual Constitutional right to own guns, incorporates it to apply to the states through the 14th amendment, and strikes down the D.C. gun regulation paving the way for all gun regulations anywhere in the country to be struck down by future Federal court action.

I think about this question as this would be the perfect ruling from the perspective of the right wing gun owners and their lobbying group the NRA.

While those of us on the left might see a ruling such as this as disastrous, I do not understand why. Put another way, what is wrong with giving on the gun control front? To me, this issue appears similar to the issue with the ending of the federally mandated speed limit. At that time, there were some who posited that raising the 65 mph speed limit on rural interstates would result in a large increase in the number of highway deaths in this country. However, to the best of my knowledge, that hasn't occurred. It has been several years since I last looked at the speed limit issue, but I feel relatively confident in saying that at worst, the rate of decline of the number of highway deaths in this country slowed, but a spike from high speed limits never occurred. I could be wrong about that assertion though.

I believe a similar thing would occur if right wing gun owners got their wish. Is there really pent up demand in NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, and all the other cities with restrictions on handgun ownership? Are gun ownership rates in those areas going to skyrocket if the regulations are gone? If gun ownership rates skyrocket, does that mean that gun deaths are going to also skyrocket? I don't think that either of those two things will come about because I don't think that there is pent up demand for guns in those cities. Perhaps, if gun ownership rates in those cities do spike, there might be a spike in the number of accidental shootings or gun accidents, but in terms of widespread shootings I just don't see that developing.

This whole discussion leads to the question of the political effects on the liberal agenda as a whole on the devotion to gun control. Is this devotion costing votes in rural areas that could be garnered in attempting to develop a greater progressive majority? Possibly, but I also am not sure that even if gun control didn't exist that rural voters would reassess their positions and find themselves to be Democrats.

Additionally, I was thinking about one of the arguments some gun owners make frequently about the 2nd amendment. Namely this argument forwards the idea that the 2nd amendment allows Americans to defend themselves with force against a tyrannical government (hereafter, gubmint). This argument is ridiculous on several fronts. First, I want to discuss it one from a philosophical point of view. Then, I want to discuss this argument from a practical point of view.

From a philosophical point of view, the right to rebel against the gubmint doesn't make sense in the context of relatively free participation in that gubmint by the people of the polity. Put more simply, voters and citizens cannot rebel against themselves, and as long as free and fair (for the most part) elections take place on a regular basis, a tyrannical government is not likely to exist. On the one hand I think the gun owners who forward this argument are part of a broader group of conservative rejectionists who refuse to play by the underlying rules of democratic/republican government. On the other hand, I think that those who espouse this view are simply playing on larger cultural ideas of American history and are ignorant of any broader political philosophical ramifications of their beliefs. Obviously those things are not incompatible, but, to me, the degree of culpability of the two positions in making the argument is important. The conservative rejectionists being more morally and intellectually culpable than those playing on larger cultural ideas. The basic philosophical point remains however, which is that citizens in a democracy cannot rebel against themselves. (I am sure someone else has developed this idea much more thoroughly, and as soon as I know who that is, I will attribute them properly.)

Having discussed that aspect of this idea that the 2nd amendment will allow people the ability to engage in armed insurrection against the United States, let's talk about the more practical aspects of such a belief. To do this,we need to conceptualize, and this is going to be tough, how the United States Military would respond to an armed insurgency... Snark aside, using Iraq as an example for a tyrannical US gubmint fighting an armed insurgency, it is possible to see the ludicrousness of the belief that Bubba and his brother are going to be able to pull it off a successful resistance to the gubmint. Iraq is actually a much better example than the United States because of the lack of any authority to control the dispersal of military grade weapons in the period between the collapse of the Saddam regime and the implementation of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Given the success in which the USMC crushed the insurgents in Falluja, I find it very hard to believe that engaging trained U.S. Military personnel in a fire fight is a recipe for success. As the Iraqis have shown, destabilizing a U.S. military occupation is much more successful when one uses explosives. From this practical point of view, the idea that "bearing arms" in the form of private ownership of firearms provides a means by which "the people" can protect themselves from the gubmint is inherently flawed. Any citizens militia in this country faced with the combined military and para military forces of this country would not stand a chance at achieving their goals. I bet this part of the reason why, despite proliferation of such right wing groups in the U.S. in the 1990s, none of these groups have actually moved to engage in such a battle. They know their claimed right is a practical sham.

A Quick Question

I hope to follow up on this in a soon to be forthcoming post.

Are those on the political right knowingly or unknowingly racist?

Obviously, it is probably a continuum.

The business with a recommended blogger from Instapundit made me think of this question.

You are wrong

It has been almost a year, and I just wanted to take this time to say that you are wrong regarding your last post. So boo on you.

Why I hate "The Law"

A friend recently wrote me and said, "I'm really disappointed by how much you have hated your education in law. Do you think you would have been happier elsewhere, or is it law in general?"

This was my response:

It's law in general. To be precise, it is the practice of law in the United States. I could rant about it all day, there are a few main points:

1. The work is generally distasteful. You have to be a jerk to be a good lawyer. Believe it or not, I don't really like being mean to people.

2. Law is essentially political. We don't want to believe it, but Scalia votes the way he does on the Supreme Court because he is politically conservative, not because there are actual doctrines of law that support his positions. We are more used to that on the Supreme Court, but it is true of every court in this country from Federal Appeals Courts to state trial courts.

3. Related to number 2, Courts have far, far too much power in our legal system. This is a deep philosophical difference that I have with the legal system. In France and Germany, there are national civil codes that spell out the law and which the courts are bound to enforce. Here there are no such codes, and the courts are empowered to make up the law as they see fit. Yes, we have statutes, but it is different, and it is surprisingly often the case that a court will interpret a statute in a manner that flatly contradicts the terms of the statute. That just debases the whole system. The system is based on this belief that when an appeals court says something, no matter how absurd, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how contrary to common sense and reason, that whatever the court said is in fact law. I really think that debases us--it makes us less human and destroys our dignity. Ahh, but I've started to rant.

4. The legal system is amoral. There is a famous quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. OWH is probably the most famous justice to sit on the Supreme Court in the 20th century, and I have an immense respect for him (not that he was always correct, however). He is one of the reasons I went to law school. He has been quoted as saying that law is not about justice. I seem to have seen the quote differently, but wikiquote puts it as "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." The whole system is amoral.

The consequence of that is that it places all lawyers and legal actors on the same level. The man who defends the tobacco company has the same moral worth as the man who helps the wrongfully convicted. The man who works to keep detainees in Guantanamo indefinitely or who works to justify the use of torture is morally equivalent to the person who works to protect a detainee's right to habeas corpus or to ban the use of torture. Again, I just can't accept that. It debases us.

To put it another way, if law is not about justice, then there can be no justice in law.

5. The system is entrenched. It is not going to change. I went to a Flaming Lips concert last September. At one point, the lead singer Wayne Coyne said, "Songs aren't a good way to protest. What's a song going to do against a war? It's like throwing a popsicle into a volcano." Practicing law within the system and hoping that it will change is the same thing. It's like throwing a popsicle into a volcano. The fact of the matter is that the law is not designed to function for you, your family, and your friends. It's designed to function for two groups: large corporations and large law firms. The interests that corporations have is obvious, but people rarely realize that large law firms have a strong interest in ensuring that "the law" is confusing, obscure, and difficult to navigate. After all, if it were easy, they wouldn't have any clients.

So, in all, I can't bring myself to want to work in an amoral, unjust, political, distasteful, and entrenched system. If you want further proof, take a day off and go down to your local courthouse -- a state courthouse. Most of the litigation done in this country happens in a state courthouse. Tell me if you see anyone having a good time. You won't. Nothing good ever happens at a courthouse. There are three reasons people go to court: 1) you are severely injured and suing someone; 2) you have severely injured someone and are being sued; 3) you are facing jail time. Those three reasons will cover probably 90% of cases.

What about that could possibly be attractive?

Anyway, so, more of a rant and much longer than I wanted it to be. But let me finish by saying that the "education" aspect of a "legal education" is wildly overblown. As I have probably told you before, law school is not premised on the existence of a body of knowledge which the student is expected to learn. Law school is a gatekeeper to the profession, and that's it. In order to practice law, you need a J.D. Whether you learn anything is completely beside the point.

Bong Hits 4 Law

I have to say that I love the idea that future law students will be pouring over the Supreme Court's decision in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. Gotta love living in Our Modern Times.

Morris Dees

Morris Dees came to UT on Thursday and gave a brief speech about Justice. Mr. Dees is one of the co-founders of the Southern Poverty Law Center and it's chief trial strategist. He said he was primarily interested in making the rule of law real for everyone, and he argued that it is important that lawyers stand up to represent the people who are likely to be most endangered by public opinion. He specifically referenced the people we are holding in Guantanamo Bay

Then he said that he thought when future historians would look back on the upcoming generation of lawyers--you and me--that they would call us one of the greatest generations of lawyers because we will have shepherded our country through our current problems while also helping to ensure that our country lived up to its promises to the most vulnerable members of our society.

He almost convinced me.

But I can't see how his hope is based in reality. When I walk around the halls of UT Law, I don't see people who are concerned about Justice. For every person who has even a shred of interest in serving the public and maintaining the rule of law, I see at least 10 who will care if the price is right. I see 10 who will never care so long as their party stays in power. And I see another ten who will never care about Justice no matter the conditions attached.

I have a hard time shaking the belief that were President Bush to refuse to step down in January, 2008, or were he to start infringing our most clear and basic rights, that about 20% of the lawyers in this country would without question stand up and support him. Another 20% would stand up and rebel. The remaining 60% would wait to see which side could write the bigger checks.

Mr. Dees speech alone begs the question of how we can have the rule of law when any position is defensible. I mean only to say that when lawyers are willing to defend both sides of every issue, then it is a draw, a wash, to say that lawyers are protecting the rule of law in this country. So long as smart, intelligent, and well connected lawyers are arguing that the president has unfettered power under the Constitution, we cannot honestly argue that the legal profession as a whole is helping to maintain the rule of law.

Why Demand Apologies?

I was reading the Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall this morning, and apparently some Republican State Representatives sent out letters stating the "‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion." Of course Marshall goes on to mention how the ADL found out about the letters and the State Representatives apologized or something.

My question is this: Why demand apologies? What is the efficacy of that?
Rather than demand an apology, just use idiotic statements like this against those people in an election. Seriously, that statement about the Pharisee religion doesn't even make sense, and surely someone who believed that shouldn't appeal to all the voters of their district. So rather than get an apology, wouldn't it be better to just to beat them over the head with it next election? To some extent apology demands legitimate the person who made the offensive comments. Apology demands are like saying "Well, recognizing your worth as a person, I know you didn't meant to say what you said, so apologize for it and we can all get along."

Well, frankly, I don't recognize the worth of a person who says something as offensive, ignorant, and theologically wrong as calling science the "Pharisee Religion". I don't want an apology because I don't recognize that idea that people who say things like that have a valid place in political discourse. They should be forced to wallow in their stupidity and steadily pushed from the mainstream of American politics.

This all relates to to the Tim Hardaway business somehow, but I am not sure how yet.

Another Possible Amendment

"The President's power as commander in chief is limited to only the strategy, tactics, and methods of the military when in the field as part of a legitimate use of force under this constitution."

Also, it seems most of these amendments are things designed to reign in the power of the president.

Oh yeah, this should be up here as well

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him" -- Tocqueville

Our Broken Constitution

Here is the list, some better written than others, of the changes, to the Constitution, that would improve our government:

-The President shall not use the military force of the United States, except when so authorized by Congress, or in order to repel an armed attack. Any unauthorized use of the military force shall be a high crime subject to impeachment upon motion of 1/4 of the House of Representatives.

-Give Congress the ability to remove cabinet level officers with simple votes of no confidence

-An amendment similar to the provision in the German Basic Law requiring party democracy

-A Congressional power to end war

-Repeal of the Direct Election of Senators, and specification that Senators MUST represent their state governments through appointment by state executives.

-Ending Pocket Vetoes

-Ending Recess Appointments

-Veto Overrides occur through a cumulative 60 percent vote of a joint session of Congress

-Update Congressional Domestic powers to reflect the era in which we live, meaning adjusting the language of Congressional powers such that Congress has the broad power to regulate the economy.

-abandon the electoral college

Other not very well thought out amendments we have discussed:

-Amending the Powers of the president such that the president is not the sole voice of the nation in foreign affairs

-Overturning Buckley v. Valeo

-Limiting the power of the Senate

-Proportional representation in Congress

-requiring Cabinet positions be held by the chairpersons of the respective Senate committees.

Other Changes that would not technically require a constitutional amendment:

-Increasing the size of the House of Representatives


What else have we come up with? Also, we should spend some time fleshing these out more.