Democrats demand a new Constitution — let’s give them one

For quite some time, the leftist political establishment has been accusing President Donald Trump of abandoning the US Constitution.

Now they have me wondering why that’s supposed to be a criticism. 

Just last week The New York Times, the establishment’s chief house organ, boosted the arguments of writer Osita Nwanevu in a column headlined: “Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court.”

Why? Because “The left can’t win without a new Constitution.”

He’s hardly the first Democrat to say so.

I’ve noticed that whenever the Constitution stands in the way of something the left wants at the moment, it’s decried as a flaw in the Constitution — not understood as a problem with what the left wants.

When Republicans propose to draw district lines for political gain, as blue states have done to an extreme degree, we’re told it’s a threat to the Constitution. 

But when Democrats want to chuck the Constitution altogether, well, that’s different.

But I suspect their current temper tantrum is also a pretty accurate predictor of what Democrats might try to do if they return to power.

So I have a few suggestions of my own.

First, if Democrats can pack the Supreme Court, why can’t Republicans? 

Unlike the Senate or the Electoral College, both established by the Constitution, the size of the Supreme Court is entirely up to Congress. 

It’s been nine justices for over a century, but that’s a matter of custom and inertia.

Democrats introduced legislation in the previous Congress to increase the size of the court, and the GOP could do the same (it’s bipartisan!) 

Fifteen is a nice number — or how about 59, with Trump appointing 50 additional justices, one per state. 

Nothing in the Constitution forbids that, and with the vastly increased output of the appellate courts, a larger Supreme Court is arguably necessary just to keep up. 

At the very least, such a court would be more representative of the nation. The Framers didn’t care about that, but we moderns tend to.

An increase so large would mean that the fate of the nation no longer hangs on a single appointment, as has been the case in recent history — so much so that (leftist) crazies have tried to assassinate crucial justices.

The other big changes Nwanevu and his fellow leftists push for center on the supposedly undemocratic Senate and Electoral College, which only a constitutional overhaul could revise.

My first instinct is to quote The Beatles: “You say you’ll change the Constitution — well, you know, we’d all love to change your head.”

But a majority of state legislatures have already voted to call a new Constitutional Convention — though not (quite) the two-thirds necessary to trigger one. 

It’s been over two centuries since the original document was drafted; maybe it’s time for a reboot.

In that case, I’d advocate for a few updates — starting with a new legislative House of Repeal. 

Congress passes a lot of bills but repeals few, because there’s more of a reward for passing legislation than for ending it. 

I propose a third house entirely devoted to repealing existing laws, or portions of them. 

With its members running on promises to undo unpopular legislation, we’d finally have someone in Congress with an incentive to give us less government rather than more.

I’d also suggest no representation without taxation. We have a huge debt because many, possibly most, voters don’t really have skin in the game. 

Let’s limit voting to net taxpayers — that is, those who pay more in taxes than they receive from government (sorry, federal employees). 

Too extreme? We could instead require every adult to pay some income tax, with the amount to increase as federal spending does.

Speaking of spending, most states have a balanced budget requirement. The federal government should, too. 

To give it teeth, we could make members of Congress ineligible for reelection if the budget goes out of balance by more than 3% (that is Warren Buffett’s idea, not mine).

Let’s also allow intra-state secession, to free large rural red areas from the rule of blue urbanites with very different values and priorities. 

Upstate New York is a prisoner of New York City politics, while ruby-red downstate Illinois is totally dominated by Chicago Democrats. These counties and others should be allowed to vote themselves into separate states if their voters so desire. 

The Constitution currently forbids that, sure — but it also provides for the undemocratic Senate and Electoral College, doesn’t it?

Of course, there’s a difference between my proposals and the leftists’ notions. 

Democrats want to change the Constitution because they don’t think they can win if it’s obeyed — and winning is, as ever, their highest and only political value.

My ideas wouldn’t help Republicans win; they’re already winning on their own. 

They’d just make the government, and our country, work better for all of us. 

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.