Questions for the Writers of The New Common Sense

I recently read The New Common Sense and I found it both quite interesting and quite elegant. I am interested in many of the writers’ ideas, especially campaign finance and lobbying reform and I do agree that continuing to concentrate wealth in the manner that has been occurring for the past three decades is both highly untenable and will have a very high cost for America and its people alike. I am also glad to see that Anonymous is calling for positive, quantifiable reforms rather than simply scrapping the system and attempting to remake the country in the image of their desires; that sort of talk is not only dangerous but quite quantifiable unproductive.

There are some concerns I would like to see addressed, though. Regarding term limits on Supreme Court justices: it’s definitely an interesting idea, but how exactly do you plan for it to work without making things even more intensely volatile and partisan than they are now? I do believe that justices are a bit of a rare breed; they need to have the practical experience in applying the law that only comes with a prior judgeship but at the same time have the impartiality and expertise of a Constitutional scholar. You’re right that the Supreme Court isn’t really seen as an impartial arbiter so much as the ultimate prize for whatever ideology is dominant at any given time. The position demands the immunity from petty politicking that only comes with a life term and the accountability that comes with regular popular election. How would they suggest resolving this conundrum?

A reevaluation of where our government stands with respect to the Constitution sounds like a great idea, but broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights has at times saved a number of rights that you and others like you have come to depend on. Mapp v. Ohio and Griswold v. Connecticut have in fact defined the right to privacy as we know it today. If you decide to simply throw away all judicial precedent uniformly and take a literalist interpretation of the constitution you wind up repudiating cases like those right alongside Plessy and Citizens United. Would it not be better to treat the body of law surrounding the Constitution (while not with the same preservative zeal as the Constitution itself) with a certain modicum of respect rather than approaching the process with strict literalism in mind?

While we’re on the topic of interpreted powers, a clarification of the power of the presidency would be a very nice thing to have. However, if all vagueness in the original writing of the Constitution is treated as strictly prohibitive rather than open to interpretation the presidency will essentially be reduced to a manager of generals and a procedural delay in the passing of legislation. I do not believe that executive orders and their cousins should be disallowed simply because they are not specifically provided for; rather their role in the shaping of policy should be defined far more sharply than they are currently. I believe the same should go for the elastic clause (also known as the “necessary and proper” clause) and the interstate commerce provision; such powers are subject to abuse but have also produced some of the greatest victories for the people in recent history (Truman’s integration of the armed forces, for one).

__________________________________________