"The Constitution is not only worth reading, but worth thinking carefully about." The words of Professor of Government Theodore Eismeier seem an appropriate summation of Monday's panel discussion, "We the people—The Constitution in the 21st Century." In celebration of national Constitution Day, the seven-professor panel discussed possible amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The discussion included Professors Theodore Eismeier, Nicholas Tampio, Robert Martin, Ned Walker and Philip Klinkner of the government department. Also asked to discuss their opinions on the topic were Professor of Economics James Bradfield and Professor Catherine Phelan of the communication department.
The topics that were discussed were varied yet they all centered on the main question that each professor was asked to answer: If you could propose a change in the Constitution, what would it be? While some offered possible amendments as part of this change, others focused on the re-examination of existing articles. Others, such as Professor Eismeier, addressed both an amendment as well as re-examination.
Eismeier discussed the possibility of re-thinking two measures of the Constitution, including the Electoral College as well as Article 2 of the Constitution, which outlines that the President must be a natural born citizen. In response to this Article, Eismeier explained the idea of the "equal opportunity to govern amendment" which would state that any person who has been a citizen of the U.S. for 20 years would be eligible for the Presidency. He believes adding this amendment to the Constitution would foster a change that better fulfills the democratic promise of the document.
Although each approached their answer to the fundamental question differently, Professor Tampio and Professor Martin both touched on the voting aspects of the Constitution. Tampio pointed out a gap in the Constitution's representation policy, arguing that an amendment should be made in order for Washington, D.C. to receive full congressional representation once the city has "reached a certain population threshold." He pointed out that while Washington, D.C. didn't exist at the time the Constitution was ratified, it now holds too large of a population to be ignored in Congress. Martin approached the idea of voting differently, proposing an amendment that would make Election Day a national holiday. This, he feels, would encourage more people to get to the polls and "do well to honor the democratic process itself." In addition to this, Martin proposed a "deliberation day" in which people would be able to go to a public venue two weeks prior to an election to discuss politics.
The panel also pulled in two professors not from the government department, which put an interesting spin on the main question. Economics professor James Bradfield chose to focus on the section of the Constitution which outlines eminent domain. He did not propose an amendment but instead pushed for a restructuring of the 5th amendment so that government will not have the power to take private property without "just compensation" and "due process." Bradfield also suggested creating a system of property rights that are easily understood. Catherine Phelan, communication professor, suggested examining the 1st amendment in regard to free speech. She argued that our ever-advancing technology of today's world poses a threat to the 1st amendment. "Freedom of speech is not absolute," she stated, "The Supreme Court believes speech must be limited in certain circumstances." Phelan believes that the first article should be flexible when approaching the hi-technology age.
With a modern example of the present-day war in Iraq, Professor Walker encouraged listeners to re-think the power the President has over the military. He addressed the notion of the President's power to declare war and the power to keep a nation engaged in warfare as stated in the Constitution. He denounced the War Powers Resolution as an "annoyance or burden rather than a check on Presidential power." "Most American's want the war in Iraq ended," he noted, going on to explain that President Bush is taking full advantage of his power over the armed forces. Thus, Walker suggested a re-examination of the War Powers Act as well as the idea of the President as "commander-in-chief."
The discussion ended with the most radical answer to the main question of the evening, as presented by Professor Klinkner. Klinkner began with an anecdote about the Founding Fathers, and how they were asked the same question that the panelists were asked in 1787. Instead of amending the Articles of Confederation, Klinkner added that they scratched the articles all together and instead formed the Constitution. "In the spirit of the founding fathers," Klinker stated that he believes the Constitution should be rejected entirely and replaced with a new constitution.
Claiming that our current Constitution has far outdated its time, Klinker proposes that a modernization is called for that will make the document more democratic.
Although each panelist touched on a separate constitutional topic, similar themes ran throughout the discussion, including the notion of making the Constitution more democratic, the power of the federal government, and whether the Constitution is modern enough for this day and age. While the answers to this fundamental question are endless, the panel discussion certainly proved to be a forward step in considering future changes to the U.S. Constitution.
-- by Danielle Raulli '10
The topics that were discussed were varied yet they all centered on the main question that each professor was asked to answer: If you could propose a change in the Constitution, what would it be? While some offered possible amendments as part of this change, others focused on the re-examination of existing articles. Others, such as Professor Eismeier, addressed both an amendment as well as re-examination.
Eismeier discussed the possibility of re-thinking two measures of the Constitution, including the Electoral College as well as Article 2 of the Constitution, which outlines that the President must be a natural born citizen. In response to this Article, Eismeier explained the idea of the "equal opportunity to govern amendment" which would state that any person who has been a citizen of the U.S. for 20 years would be eligible for the Presidency. He believes adding this amendment to the Constitution would foster a change that better fulfills the democratic promise of the document.
Although each approached their answer to the fundamental question differently, Professor Tampio and Professor Martin both touched on the voting aspects of the Constitution. Tampio pointed out a gap in the Constitution's representation policy, arguing that an amendment should be made in order for Washington, D.C. to receive full congressional representation once the city has "reached a certain population threshold." He pointed out that while Washington, D.C. didn't exist at the time the Constitution was ratified, it now holds too large of a population to be ignored in Congress. Martin approached the idea of voting differently, proposing an amendment that would make Election Day a national holiday. This, he feels, would encourage more people to get to the polls and "do well to honor the democratic process itself." In addition to this, Martin proposed a "deliberation day" in which people would be able to go to a public venue two weeks prior to an election to discuss politics.
The panel also pulled in two professors not from the government department, which put an interesting spin on the main question. Economics professor James Bradfield chose to focus on the section of the Constitution which outlines eminent domain. He did not propose an amendment but instead pushed for a restructuring of the 5th amendment so that government will not have the power to take private property without "just compensation" and "due process." Bradfield also suggested creating a system of property rights that are easily understood. Catherine Phelan, communication professor, suggested examining the 1st amendment in regard to free speech. She argued that our ever-advancing technology of today's world poses a threat to the 1st amendment. "Freedom of speech is not absolute," she stated, "The Supreme Court believes speech must be limited in certain circumstances." Phelan believes that the first article should be flexible when approaching the hi-technology age.
With a modern example of the present-day war in Iraq, Professor Walker encouraged listeners to re-think the power the President has over the military. He addressed the notion of the President's power to declare war and the power to keep a nation engaged in warfare as stated in the Constitution. He denounced the War Powers Resolution as an "annoyance or burden rather than a check on Presidential power." "Most American's want the war in Iraq ended," he noted, going on to explain that President Bush is taking full advantage of his power over the armed forces. Thus, Walker suggested a re-examination of the War Powers Act as well as the idea of the President as "commander-in-chief."
The discussion ended with the most radical answer to the main question of the evening, as presented by Professor Klinkner. Klinkner began with an anecdote about the Founding Fathers, and how they were asked the same question that the panelists were asked in 1787. Instead of amending the Articles of Confederation, Klinkner added that they scratched the articles all together and instead formed the Constitution. "In the spirit of the founding fathers," Klinker stated that he believes the Constitution should be rejected entirely and replaced with a new constitution.
Claiming that our current Constitution has far outdated its time, Klinker proposes that a modernization is called for that will make the document more democratic.
Although each panelist touched on a separate constitutional topic, similar themes ran throughout the discussion, including the notion of making the Constitution more democratic, the power of the federal government, and whether the Constitution is modern enough for this day and age. While the answers to this fundamental question are endless, the panel discussion certainly proved to be a forward step in considering future changes to the U.S. Constitution.
-- by Danielle Raulli '10
