This is a worthwhile discussion point, but I think that your post should have made reference to the constitutional changes that Senator Sanders has called for or supported over the years. Even without attempting a comprehensive analysis of these, some quick searches reveal that he has supported or proposed the following constitutional reforms:
1. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United (2011).
2. The constitutional enactment of economic and social rights, including:
The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
The right to quality health care
The right to a complete education
The right to affordable housing
The right to a clean environment
The right to a secure retirement
Senator Sanders has been consistently proposing this since 1987.
Hi Fergus, thanks for reading the post and putting down your thoughts.
I think there are two points to make. The first is that while Sanders has talked about constitutional amendments using Article 5 during his career, he isn't using his platform right now to discuss flaws in the Constitution. Why not point out that Trump won in 2016 thanks to the Electoral College and call for its abolition? Why not call the Electoral College oligarchic? The same can be said for AOC. Last year she was calling the Supreme Court a threat to democracy and to American lives. Now, nothing.
The other point is that Article 5 is a non-starter as folks including Richard Albert, Aziz Rana, and Michael Klarman have noted. Amendents are no longer possible through the Constitution's rules. At this point, calling for an Article 5 is either wishful but misguided thinking or intentionally deceptive.
Also thanks to you for replying. I'll also begin by thanking you for your site and podcasts, which I have found useful and enjoyable to listen to.
Starting with your second point, I agree with you here, and would supplement your list of scholars with a reference to Akhil Reed Amar's articles in the 1990s saying that the constitution's endorsement of popular sovereignty acknowledges Americans' constituent right / power to circumvent Article V. (Of course you are aware of these.)
On your first point, I don't live in the US or have sufficient familiarity with Sanders politics to know whether his omissions represent momentary tactical considerations or a more general unwillingness to embrace needed constitutional change. Nevertheless, I suspect that it is the former. How do you turn nerdy discussions about arcane legal provisions into winning soap box rhetoric for retail politicians?
I'm glad the blog has been a valuable resource! I think one way to talk about the problems with the Constitution is to bring in the idea of universal and equal rights, especially the right to an equal vote. The Senate and Electoral College are glaring examples of why we don't have equal suffrage. Sanders could point out that we don't have universal and equal suffrage and point to Trump's 2016 election or that all of his SCOTUS nominees were confirmed by a majority of senators representing a minority of the population. I think that's very easy to understand and doesn't get bogged down in legal language. The slogan, "one person, one vote," has a lot of resonance in the U.S. thanks to the Civil Rights Movement, and it wouldn't take too much work to point out how the Constitution violates that principle.
This is a worthwhile discussion point, but I think that your post should have made reference to the constitutional changes that Senator Sanders has called for or supported over the years. Even without attempting a comprehensive analysis of these, some quick searches reveal that he has supported or proposed the following constitutional reforms:
1. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United (2011).
2. The constitutional enactment of economic and social rights, including:
The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
The right to quality health care
The right to a complete education
The right to affordable housing
The right to a clean environment
The right to a secure retirement
Senator Sanders has been consistently proposing this since 1987.
3. Elimination of the Electoral College.
4. Rotation of judges on the Supreme Court.
Hi Fergus, thanks for reading the post and putting down your thoughts.
I think there are two points to make. The first is that while Sanders has talked about constitutional amendments using Article 5 during his career, he isn't using his platform right now to discuss flaws in the Constitution. Why not point out that Trump won in 2016 thanks to the Electoral College and call for its abolition? Why not call the Electoral College oligarchic? The same can be said for AOC. Last year she was calling the Supreme Court a threat to democracy and to American lives. Now, nothing.
The other point is that Article 5 is a non-starter as folks including Richard Albert, Aziz Rana, and Michael Klarman have noted. Amendents are no longer possible through the Constitution's rules. At this point, calling for an Article 5 is either wishful but misguided thinking or intentionally deceptive.
Also thanks to you for replying. I'll also begin by thanking you for your site and podcasts, which I have found useful and enjoyable to listen to.
Starting with your second point, I agree with you here, and would supplement your list of scholars with a reference to Akhil Reed Amar's articles in the 1990s saying that the constitution's endorsement of popular sovereignty acknowledges Americans' constituent right / power to circumvent Article V. (Of course you are aware of these.)
On your first point, I don't live in the US or have sufficient familiarity with Sanders politics to know whether his omissions represent momentary tactical considerations or a more general unwillingness to embrace needed constitutional change. Nevertheless, I suspect that it is the former. How do you turn nerdy discussions about arcane legal provisions into winning soap box rhetoric for retail politicians?
I'm glad the blog has been a valuable resource! I think one way to talk about the problems with the Constitution is to bring in the idea of universal and equal rights, especially the right to an equal vote. The Senate and Electoral College are glaring examples of why we don't have equal suffrage. Sanders could point out that we don't have universal and equal suffrage and point to Trump's 2016 election or that all of his SCOTUS nominees were confirmed by a majority of senators representing a minority of the population. I think that's very easy to understand and doesn't get bogged down in legal language. The slogan, "one person, one vote," has a lot of resonance in the U.S. thanks to the Civil Rights Movement, and it wouldn't take too much work to point out how the Constitution violates that principle.