Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, November 19, 2007
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
No Need to Tinker with the Constitution
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Let's face it. Some people, especially liberals, just don't like the U.S. Constitution. Every few years, they come up with wild or devious plans to make major changes.

The would-be rewriters of the Constitution do not merely propose amendments to remedy a problem, as allowed for in Article V. They seek structural change after hurling put-downs such as archaic and out-of-date.

The latest to imagine that he can write a 21st century improvement on our great Constitution is University of Virginia professor Larry J. Sabato, whom the Washington Post once dubbed "the Mark McGwire of political analysts." His rhetoric might be on steroids but his ideas for a "more perfect" Constitution sound like warmed-over Rhodes-scholar dissatisfaction with impudent American revolutionaries who dared to reject the British system and write an original document.

Here are some of Sabato's 23 proposals to revitalize our constitution, which he set forth in his new book entitled "A More Perfect Constitution" (Walker and Co., $25.95).

Sabato wants to make all former presidents and vice presidents "National senators." I guess the prospect of Bill Clinton as first gentleman in the White House isn't a sure thing, so we should meanwhile guarantee him a speaking platform in the Senate.

Sabato would erase the great compromise of our Constitution that produced a federal union: the bicameral Congress with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate based on state representation. He wants to give the 10 most populous states two additional senators, the 15 next most populous states one additional senator, and the District of Columbia one senator.

Of course, Sabato doesn't like the Electoral College. Liberals have been carping about the Electoral College system for years, and when Hillary Clinton celebrated her victory as U.S. senator from New York, her first pronouncement was that we have "outlived the need for an Electoral College" and it should be abolished.

Sabato wants to manipulate the Electoral College in a way he claims will reduce the chances that a president will win without a majority of the popular vote. Because of third parties, we've had many elections (including three of the last four), when no presidential candidate received a popular-vote majority.

Sabato can't prevent this unless he bans third parties. We are fortunate that we now have a proven system that allows the president to achieve an Electoral College majority that validates his election.

Sabato would abolish the constitutional provision that the president and vice president shall be "a natural-born citizen." That will bring cheers from the open-borders crowd eager to build a majority of diverse people unfamiliar with American rule of law. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

re: budbud
The strawmen of animals and children is often brought up when discussing gay marriage and/or civil unions. As you mention, it is a non sequitor argument, completely unrelated to the debate.

Simply put, government should rarely, if ever, have any say in contracts between consenting adults, as long as there is no fraud, coercion, or infringement upon the liberties of others. That includes civil contracts between same-sex couples.

The problem is that many approach gay marriage as a "gay rights" debate; I look at the issue as one of individual property rights, individual liberty, limited government intrusion -- consistent with my beliefs in other areas, such as taxation, trade & commerce, health care, education, and Social Security. The purpose of government is to protect individual liberty, NOT promote an agenda.

Do you disagree?
Flagwaver. Do you disagree with the court in Loving versus Virginia? Do you think the states should indeed be able to outlaw interracial sex and marriage? They had an alleged state interest in keeping the races pure or some such nonsense.

How's about leaving it to popular vote? If we put peoples civil rights up to popular vote, we'd still have segregation in the South. That damn Supreme Court. They are just terrible huh?

Marriage is a personal matter. The state can't just arbitrarily bar people from entering into a civil contract. Tradition is NOT a legitimate reason. If tradition was a legal reason to continue something, just think of all the horrible things we'd still have in society today.

Why is it that conservatives claim they want limited government, government out of peoples lives and yet they want the heavy hand of governmnent to control and regulate the most intimate and personal aspects of peoples lives.

I'm surprised conservatives haven't tried to pass laws telling people how they have to sit on the toilet! That seems like something that should be right up their alley.

As for the absurd claims that allowing gays to marry somehow allows adults to marry children and dogs? Please. Civil marriage is a civil contract. Children and animals can't LEGALLY enter into ANY contract. They can't even LEGALLY apply for a credit card for this reason. Try again.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.