Should Progressives Fight or Welcome the Republican Effort to Call a Constitutional Convention?

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
W. Niemi
{"title":"Should Progressives Fight or Welcome the Republican Effort to Call a Constitutional Convention?","authors":"W. Niemi","doi":"10.1080/07393148.2023.2203057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recently published, Senator Russ Feingold and Stanford scholar Peter Prindiville’s, The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About it, criticizes a current Republican effort to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. This paper argues that progressives, like these authors, and defenders of democracy are mistaken to defend the status quo of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, while the political stakes are certainly high, the effort to create a constitutional convention may be an opportunity for U.S. citizens across the spectrum to engage in constitutional politics aimed at altering the Constitution. A fully engaged citizenry and political elite—rather than one political side in a politically polarized society—would be healthier for the future of a successful modern democracy. This essay will engage Feingold and Prindiville‘s challenging argument opposing the Republican effort to call a constitutional convention under Article V which states that Congress, “on the application of legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Roughly 20 states of the 34 required have passed such resolutions. While there are 27 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article V has never been used to call a convention. A second aim of the essay is to review the democratic critique of the Constitution, and argue that democratic reform is urgently needed. From the perspective of effective modern democracy, the goal of constitutional change should be seen as imperative: consideration should be given to alter the counter-majoritarian and unrepresentative features of the Constitution. These counter-majoritarian constraints in the U.S. Constitution are an institutional cause of “American Exceptionalism:” why is the United States more libertarian, with only a weak social democratic tradition, and always challenged to create efficient and representative policies? In short, I will argue that progressives must win the battle for democracy and make efforts to reform the Constitution.","PeriodicalId":46114,"journal":{"name":"New Political Science","volume":"45 1","pages":"380 - 404"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2023.2203057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Recently published, Senator Russ Feingold and Stanford scholar Peter Prindiville’s, The Constitution in Jeopardy: An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite Our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About it, criticizes a current Republican effort to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. This paper argues that progressives, like these authors, and defenders of democracy are mistaken to defend the status quo of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, while the political stakes are certainly high, the effort to create a constitutional convention may be an opportunity for U.S. citizens across the spectrum to engage in constitutional politics aimed at altering the Constitution. A fully engaged citizenry and political elite—rather than one political side in a politically polarized society—would be healthier for the future of a successful modern democracy. This essay will engage Feingold and Prindiville‘s challenging argument opposing the Republican effort to call a constitutional convention under Article V which states that Congress, “on the application of legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Roughly 20 states of the 34 required have passed such resolutions. While there are 27 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article V has never been used to call a convention. A second aim of the essay is to review the democratic critique of the Constitution, and argue that democratic reform is urgently needed. From the perspective of effective modern democracy, the goal of constitutional change should be seen as imperative: consideration should be given to alter the counter-majoritarian and unrepresentative features of the Constitution. These counter-majoritarian constraints in the U.S. Constitution are an institutional cause of “American Exceptionalism:” why is the United States more libertarian, with only a weak social democratic tradition, and always challenged to create efficient and representative policies? In short, I will argue that progressives must win the battle for democracy and make efforts to reform the Constitution.
进步派应该反对还是欢迎共和党召开制宪会议的努力?
摘要最近出版的参议员Russ Feingold和斯坦福大学学者Peter Prindiville的《危险中的宪法:重写我们的基本法的前所未有的努力以及我们能做些什么》批评了共和党目前根据美国宪法第五条召开制宪会议的努力。本文认为,像这些作者一样的进步派和民主捍卫者错误地捍卫了美国宪法的现状。相反,尽管政治风险肯定很高,但创建制宪会议的努力可能是美国公民参与旨在修改宪法的宪法政治的机会。一个充分参与的公民和政治精英——而不是政治两极分化社会中的一方——对一个成功的现代民主的未来来说会更健康。这篇文章将涉及Feingold和Prindiville的挑战性论点,他们反对共和党根据第五条召开制宪会议的努力,该条规定,国会“应根据几个州中三分之二的立法机构的申请,召开制宪会议提出修正案。”在所需的34个州中,大约有20个州通过了此类决议。虽然美国宪法有27项修正案,但第五条从未被用来召集大会。本文的第二个目的是回顾对宪法的民主批判,并认为民主改革是迫切需要的。从有效的现代民主的角度来看,宪法改革的目标应该被视为势在必行:应该考虑改变宪法的反多数和不具代表性的特征。美国宪法中的这些反多数主义限制是“美国例外主义”的制度原因:为什么美国更自由主义,只有薄弱的社会民主传统,并且总是面临制定有效和有代表性的政策的挑战?简言之,我认为进步派必须赢得民主之战,并努力改革宪法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Political Science
New Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信