Tuesday, July 10, 2007

More Constitutional Tinkering

JL Wilson posts some ideas for constitutional reform along the lines of Britain’s parliamentary system.

“I believe our own system errs in separating the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to the extent they do. I believe there would be more real ‘checks and balances’ if there was greater integration of those powers.”

I tend to agree. The prohibition on legislators’ holding executive offices doesn’t make as much sense as the founders evidently believed. At the time, they worried that the president would become a mere cipher overwhelmed by Congress. Not to worry, as we have daily proof. I don’t care if the president becomes a cipher. In fact, let the presidency be something of a ceremonial position useful for funerals and grand occasions of state while the Speaker wields the real executive power. Let all the cabinet positions be filled by Congresspersons exclusively.

This would render the executive more accountable in a number of ways. Oversight would be less problematic than now, and the sponsors of laws could be made responsible for administering them. Sanford Levinson points out this advantage in the book I reviewed yesterday. We could get rid of bad government quickly with votes of no confidence and avoid unduly long transitions.

What I would like to see in constitutional reform are structural changes that require more of a broad consensus before legislation or policy can be enacted. Anything that contributes to the proliferation of parties in Congress would be helpful since coalitions would be necessary to get anything done. One possibility would be proportional representation as suggested by commenter john david galt in my post calling for abolition of the Senate.

One thing I particularly admire about the British system is the “shadow government” maintained by the opposition. You know exactly where the opposition stands and who would be running the show if the current regime fouls up or bucks public opinion. In our present system, you have no idea who is going to be Secretary of State or Defense or what have you until after the election.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I found the following comments of interest. They are from a column by Joseph Sobran, and refer to analysis in Charles Adams’s 1993 book For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization:

Only one country, as Adams tells it, has gotten it right: Switzerland. The Swiss have kept their government under control pretty well, in great part because they have had the wisdom to keep the taxing power and the spending power under separate agencies. He says this practice also preserved English liberty for a long time, but the vaunted American constitutional separation of powers overlooked this crucial distinction. The U.S. Congress taxes and spends. So we lack checks and balances where we most need them. Moreover, the Swiss federal government can’t raise taxes without a popular majority, which is usually denied. The Swiss taxpayer, unlike the American, has learned to defend himself.

According to Adams, America’s downfall may come gradually through its failure to control and limit the taxing power. A nominally “federal” system is in vain when the spending and taxing powers are combined and centralized. It’s at least a provocative idea; but if his book teaches anything, it’s that Swiss wisdom isn’t contagious.

Here is a link to the column:

http://www.sobran.com/articles/taxationages.shtml