16/09: Constitution Day
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
September 17 is Constitution Day, honoring the date of signing of the proposed Constitution in 1787. Fly the flag.
I am impressed with our Constitution for many reasons. One which has struck me this fall, as I've taught American Government, is the way the founders dealt with the issue of stability versus responsiveness.
For a people truly to be self-governing, government must be responsive to the will of the voters. But, the will of the voters can swing wildly in short periods of time, making pure democracy unstable. Stability is needed to avoid anarchy. On the other hand, even though government needs to be stable, too much stability means that the will of the people is ignored, until it explodes in rebellion.
Think of the Legislative Branch. Two houses.
The House of Representatives is designed to be RESPONSIVE. Representatives are elected by the voters. They serve two year terms and the whole body must face the voters at once. Theoretically, we could have a 435 seat turnover every two years.
The Senate is designed to be STABLE. Senators originally were chosen by their state legislatures, which presumably know their interests with greater stability than the voters. Senators serve 6 year terms with only 1/3 of the terms expiring on the two-year election cycle. At most a 1/3 turnover is envisioned every two years, not counting the occasional resignation.
Stability and Responsiveness built into one branch. Of course, the House of Representatives is not complete democratic chaos, the terms are for two years, not monthly or weekly turnover.
The Executive Branch seems geared to Stability. Chosen by Electors, chosen by their states, and assumed to be more stable in their opinions than the average voter. And, 4 year terms. More stable than annual or every two-year elections. But, some responsiveness, mandatory election every 4 years.
The Judicial Branch: Stability. Once confirmed by the Senate, lifetime tenure on good behavior.
The Amendment Process. Responsiveness in that there is a process of amendment. No revolution needed to alter the Constitution. But, Stability is affirmed by the difficulty of the amending process. After coming out of Congress (by 2/3) or out of a Convention when requested by 2/3 of the states, then 3/4 of the State Legislatures must approve the amendment. Very stable, but still responsive to the will of the people.
A thinking out loud: is the responsiveness the Founders wanted for the House of Representatives eliminated by the creation of "safe" districts when State Legislatures do redistricting? It seems so to me. As it now stands, an incumbant Senator has a somewhat greater chance of being voted out of office than a Representative. You can't gerrymander a state.
I am impressed with our Constitution for many reasons. One which has struck me this fall, as I've taught American Government, is the way the founders dealt with the issue of stability versus responsiveness.
For a people truly to be self-governing, government must be responsive to the will of the voters. But, the will of the voters can swing wildly in short periods of time, making pure democracy unstable. Stability is needed to avoid anarchy. On the other hand, even though government needs to be stable, too much stability means that the will of the people is ignored, until it explodes in rebellion.
Think of the Legislative Branch. Two houses.
The House of Representatives is designed to be RESPONSIVE. Representatives are elected by the voters. They serve two year terms and the whole body must face the voters at once. Theoretically, we could have a 435 seat turnover every two years.
The Senate is designed to be STABLE. Senators originally were chosen by their state legislatures, which presumably know their interests with greater stability than the voters. Senators serve 6 year terms with only 1/3 of the terms expiring on the two-year election cycle. At most a 1/3 turnover is envisioned every two years, not counting the occasional resignation.
Stability and Responsiveness built into one branch. Of course, the House of Representatives is not complete democratic chaos, the terms are for two years, not monthly or weekly turnover.
The Executive Branch seems geared to Stability. Chosen by Electors, chosen by their states, and assumed to be more stable in their opinions than the average voter. And, 4 year terms. More stable than annual or every two-year elections. But, some responsiveness, mandatory election every 4 years.
The Judicial Branch: Stability. Once confirmed by the Senate, lifetime tenure on good behavior.
The Amendment Process. Responsiveness in that there is a process of amendment. No revolution needed to alter the Constitution. But, Stability is affirmed by the difficulty of the amending process. After coming out of Congress (by 2/3) or out of a Convention when requested by 2/3 of the states, then 3/4 of the State Legislatures must approve the amendment. Very stable, but still responsive to the will of the people.
A thinking out loud: is the responsiveness the Founders wanted for the House of Representatives eliminated by the creation of "safe" districts when State Legislatures do redistricting? It seems so to me. As it now stands, an incumbant Senator has a somewhat greater chance of being voted out of office than a Representative. You can't gerrymander a state.
A Waco Farmer wrote:
We are drawing form the same well.
Interesting question.
Shall we reconsider term limits?