One certainly has to admire Larry Sabato whether one agrees with him or not. Anyone suggesting that the U.S. Constitution is "out of date" and in need of reform is bound to enrage many, if not most, of the millions of traditional political conservatives in this country. They not only oppose the very idea of a "living" Constitution and tend to support the view that the Constitution is just fine as it is, but are "originalists" (that is, what was the original intent of the Founders?) when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Sabato, however, in "A More Perfect Constitution" argues that the U.S. Constitution is in need of an upgrade and he presents twenty-three proposals for its reformation. Despite the fact that the title of the book is problematic (how does one make something "more perfect" when "perfect" already means "without any defect"?), I submit that Sabato's book needs to be read by every citizen of this country who is concerned about its future. The plain truth is: The Constitution as handed down to us and in its present form does not meet the political needs of the nation as it now exists. (Sorry, my fellow political conservatives.)
Generally speaking, I think Sabato's proposals are worth considering and should be the subject of a wide-ranging public debate. (There is one of his proposals, however, which I find especially troubling and I'll get to that one in a minute.) The very calling of a constitutional convention would be controversial, to be sure, particularly in this current period of political polarization. The apparent power of so many special-interest groups today would also deter many citizens from supporting the call for a constitutional convention. Who would be the delegates? How would they be chosen? What would be the requirements? What would prohibit someone from being a delegate? How would the so-called great divide between red states and blue states play into the process? What influence would right-wing radio talk show hosts or left-wing Internet bloggers have on the delegates during the reformation process? I think these items would be of concern to most centrist-thinking Americans. But I believe they can be resolved if people are willing to use some good old American common sense (sometimes lost but not forgotten).
There is little doubt in my mind that the office of the president is due for a serious makeover. Over the past few generations the nation's president has accumulated too much power and Congress has not done an effective job of oversight as it is constitutionally required to do. Four years for the president is too short a term and eight years is too long. Sabato's recommendation of a six-year presidential term seems reasonable to me. The president also desperately needs the line-item veto as suggested by Sabato. Furthermore, there is no good reason today to maintain the prohibition against non-natural-born presidents and Sabato's recommendation of twenty years of citizenship for this office appears reasonable, although I would have suggested twenty-five years (just don't ask me why).
More important, in my opinion, is the structure of the Congress. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended the creation of a class of "professional politicians" who would be elected to the House or the Senate and then spend their entire life occupying a chair there, spending the bulk of their time running for reelection, becoming pawns of special-interest groups, and enriching themselves at the public trough. Therefore, term limits for Congress must be built into any new constitution. (Yes, I know all the arguments against term limits, but the arguments in favor of them are more compelling and it's not like it's a matter of some absolute fundamental political principle.) And Sabato's suggestion that the House be expanded to around 1,000 members -- for better, closer representation -- is worthy of serious consideration.
Now for the new federal courts. It is completely asinine, in my opinion, for federal judges to have lifetime appointments and especially so for the Supreme Court justices. Sabato's recommendation of a single, nonrenewable term of fifteen years for all federal judges (including the Supremes) is more than reasonable, although I would have recommended a somewhat lesser term and a definite retirement age. Expanding the size of the Supreme Court from nine to twelve, as Sabato suggests, would get my approval but I suspect that many will object to the increase, recalling FDR's attempt to "pack" the court so he could get his Depression-era policies approved. But this would not be an attempt to pack the court in the name of some special interest, but merely to create a more representative court.
As I said above, most of Sabato's proposals appear reasonable to me and some of them are much needed reforms. There is one, however, that I have to take issue with and that is his suggestion for Universal National Service (UNS), a constitutional requirement that all U.S. citizens of sound mind and body would be required (read "forced") to give two years of service to the nation in some military or civilian capacity. Now, I can understand the rationale behind this recommendation. I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into it. He knows this will be controversial for he notes: "Libertarians find this proposal especially objectionable, insisting that governmental power over the individual must be kept to an absolute minimum.... But,...the libertarian approach ignores the substantial benefits not just for society but for the individual in the commitment to service."
I could immediately feel my own physical reaction when I read his UNS proposal. To libertarians, even moderate ones like I am, the idea of government-enforced service raises a red flag. The notion of government-enforced service, in our view, tends to fall into the same category as that of the personal income tax, which is why libertarians generally oppose such a tax. Both ideas, we generally argue, rest on the proposition that the government (or State, as some of us prefer to say) "own" us as human beings; it is a type of "slavery," the State claiming supremacy over our minds, bodies, sweat, blood, and tears to do with it what it will. If the State can demand two years of your life, it owns you. If you are paying fifty percent in personal income taxes, the State owns fifty percent of your mental and physical labor. Libertarians generally subscribe to a principle of personal sovereignty and argue for voluntary, consensual, and mutually-agreed-to contractual arrangements.
On the other hand, this does not mean that the idea of Universal National Service needs to be rejected outright. This one, like all the other proposals put forth by Sabato, should be debated in a public forum with input from all points on the political spectrum. But libertarians have a basic mistrust of government which is, by the way, historically justified. The political scientist Dr. R. J. Rummel has amply documented the history of what he calls "democide" (death by government) which in the twentieth century resulted in the mass killing of tens of millions of ordinary human beings by their own government. (And, need I say, the American government has not been immune from this phenomena in its own history.)
So, out of twenty-three proposals, I have no serious problem with twenty-two of them suggested by Sabato. In a constitutional convention, if I were a delegate (unlikely!), I might suggest some changes to his recommendations as far as the details are concerned. But, in general, I think he's on the right track. I give this book the highest recommendation, not because I agree with everything that the author says, but because I think he has important things to say that all citizens ought to hear and think about. If nothing else, "A More Perfect Constitution" will spark some much needed debate. And that alone makes Professor Sabato's book a worthwhile read.
