Jonah Patel
The relationship between progressives and the Constitution has been fraught, with progressives arguing that the Constitution was designed for an agrarian society of slaveholding white males, creating political institutions that are ill-equipped to meet modern demands. Progressives have also been characterized as disdainful of the Constitution’s limits on government power, instead favouring a more expansive interpretation of individual rights. However, some argue that the original Constitution is not completely incompatible with progressive constitutionalism, as it establishes a structure of divided government necessary for a constitutional democracy with robust protections for individual rights. Progressives seek to embed democracy more effectively in the Constitution, believing that this will better protect rights than an explicit description of each right. A progressive Constitution would provide a general right for Americans to vote in all elections, with uniform voter qualifications established by Congress, and require that congressional district lines be drawn by nonpartisan commissions.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Right to vote in federal, state, and local elections | Includes residents of federal territories like the District of Columbia |
| Voting rights | Uniform voter qualifications in federal elections established by Congress |
| Congressional representation | Nonpartisan commissions draw congressional district lines |
| Regulation of campaign expenditures | Mitigates the influence of wealthy individuals and organizations over elections |
| Elimination of the Electoral College | Replaced with a national popular vote for President |
| Ranked-choice voting | Makes it easier for candidates with broad support to win the Presidency |
| Positive entitlements | Strengthening democratic institutions provides more opportunities for people to speak on issues of entitlements |
| First Amendment | Provides clear protections for those with spiritual approaches but no religious affiliation |
| Ninth Amendment | Recognizes unenumerated rights and includes a limitations clause for the exercise of all rights |
| Equality | The right of persons in the United States shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex, sexual orientation, performance of sexual or gender identity, sexual preference, or pregnancy, and all attendant conditions |
| Legislative powers | All legislative powers are vested in a Congress of the United States, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives |
| Progressive tax on income | The 16th Amendment changed the primary method of federal revenue generation, moving away from regressive taxes |
| Women's suffrage | The progressive movement secured women's right to vote in the Constitution |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
$190 $55.99
What You'll Learn
Right to vote
The right to vote has been a contested issue in the US since its founding. Surprisingly, the original US Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to vote for citizens. Instead, it states that anyone eligible to vote for the largest house of a state legislature is also eligible to vote for members of the House of Representatives from that state. The Elections Clause gives Congress and the federal government the power to determine the "Times, Places, and Manner" of congressional elections.
Following the abolition of slavery and the growing push to extend voting rights, a series of constitutional amendments were adopted to protect the right to vote. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, grants citizenship and the right to vote to all natural-born or naturalized Americans, regardless of race. The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibits restricting the right to vote based on race, colour, or previous servitude. However, despite these amendments, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to vote narrowly, and discriminatory practices, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, prevented many African Americans from exercising their voting rights.
The expansion of voting rights continued with the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote. The 24th Amendment explicitly banned poll taxes, removing a barrier for low-income citizens. The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18 for all elections. Federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, further protected voting rights by prohibiting discrimination based on race, colour, or language minority status.
A progressive constitution would aim to strengthen voting rights by providing a general right for Americans to vote in federal, state, and local elections, regardless of carceral condition. It would establish uniform voter qualifications in federal elections, determined by Congress, and require congressional district lines to be drawn by nonpartisan commissions. Additionally, it would address the influence of money in elections and replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote for President, conducted through ranked-choice voting. While the US Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to vote, almost all state constitutions do, and it is up to the states to take action to protect this right through legislation and removing barriers to voter registration.
Enlightenment's Impact on American Revolution and Constitution
You may want to see also
Voting rights for federal territory residents
The US Constitution has been called a "progressive document" due to its ability to advance progressive agendas and goals. The progressive features of the Constitution are often considered in the context of strengthening democratic institutions and promoting fairness, dignity, opportunity, and economic efficiency.
One of the key progressive features of the Constitution is the inclusion of voting rights for residents of federal territories, including the District of Columbia, which would become a state. This provision grants residents of these territories the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections, as well as congressional representation. It ensures that voter qualifications in federal elections are uniform and established by Congress, rather than allowing officeholders to select voters. Additionally, it encourages the use of nonpartisan commissions to draw congressional district lines, a model already successful in several states and countries worldwide. This approach does not restrict Congress from experimenting with forms of proportional representation or multimember districts.
The Constitution's progressive nature is also evident in its efforts to mitigate the influence of wealth and unaccountable entities over elections. Progressives argue for fairness and democracy, advocating for the regulation of campaign expenditures and contributions to counter the disproportionate power of wealthy individuals and organizations. This regulation is intended to be reasonable and pursue legitimate objectives, ensuring that American voting rights are not undermined by anti-democratic institutions.
Furthermore, the Constitution's progressive characteristics extend to addressing negative rights and promoting positive entitlements. While the current Constitution has been criticized for primarily outlining negative rights, progressive constitutionalism aims to strengthen democratic institutions and provide greater opportunities for people to speak on issues of entitlements. This approach is consistent with federal and state governments, constitutions, and laws, creating a robust framework of rights and freedoms.
Additionally, the progressive Constitution considers the protection of spiritual approaches beyond traditional religious affiliations. It reimagines the First Amendment to provide clear protections for individuals with spiritual beliefs, aligning with modern constitutional democracies and international human rights declarations.
Overall, the progressive features of the Constitution focus on enhancing democratic participation, addressing disparities, and protecting the rights and freedoms of all Americans, including those residing in federal territories. These features contribute to a more inclusive and representative political system.
Congressional Sessions: How Often and Why?
You may want to see also
Nonpartisan commissions for congressional district lines
The United States Constitution has been called a "progressive" document, and one of the proposed progressive features is the use of nonpartisan commissions for congressional district lines. This would ensure that voters select their representatives, rather than the other way around.
Currently, 39 state legislatures have primary control over the congressional district lines in their states, with district lines often being drawn by legislative committees chosen by legislative leadership. This has resulted in maps that are often gerrymandered, or manipulated, to favour one political party over another.
To address this issue, some states have implemented nonpartisan or independent commissions to draw congressional district lines. These commissions strive to create electoral districts that accurately reflect the preferences and demographics of the population. They do so by adopting transparent processes and considering factors such as demographic changes and the impact on communities.
There are different types of commissions, including advisory commissions, which make recommendations to the legislature, and politician commissions, which include elected officials as members. Some states, such as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New York, and Washington, use independent commissions with regulations limiting direct participation by elected officials.
The use of independent commissions has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission that the use of non-politician commissions in congressional redistricting is constitutional.
The creation of nonpartisan commissions for congressional district lines is a progressive feature as it ensures that voting districts are drawn in a fair and equitable manner, giving voters a stronger voice in selecting their representatives.
The US Constitution: Education and Schools Mentioned?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$11.44 $14.5
$143.93 $159.99
Regulation of campaign expenditures
The conduct of political campaigns is subject to numerous regulations, including how money is contributed and spent. The regulation of campaign expenditures and contributions is important to mitigate the disproportionate influence of wealthy and unaccountable individuals and organisations over elections. This is permissible in a democracy, as it is in all others in the world.
A progressive constitution would allow for such regulation, provided it is reasonable and pursues a legitimate objective. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court in Citizens United v. FEC, but reasonable regulation is acceptable under the current Amendment.
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended in 1974, imposed new and stringent regulation of and limitations on contributions to and expenditures by political campaigns. The Act also required the disclosure of most contributions and expenditures. The Court upheld the contribution and disclosure sections of the statute but voided the limitations on expenditures. The Court's decision was based on the argument that expenditure ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedoms of political expression and association than contribution limitations.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that while money given for political purposes implicates First Amendment concerns, the government's interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption permits such action. This was demonstrated in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000), where the Court indicated that contribution limits would be upheld unless they were so low that it was impossible to raise sufficient funds for an effective campaign.
However, critics argue that efforts to regulate campaign finance are based on mistaken assumptions about the role of money in politics. They argue that spending on political campaigns is not extravagant, amounting to only a few dollars per eligible voter every two years. Furthermore, there are no objective criteria to determine whether "too much" is spent on political campaigns.
Iraq's Constitution: Separate Electorates or Unified Voting?
You may want to see also
Secularism and freedom of religion
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is often cited in relation to secularism and freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause reflects a consensus that there should be no nationally established church, preventing the government from compelling attendance or financial support of a religious institution. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the Constitution mandates accommodation and forbids hostility towards any religion. The First Amendment also ensures governmental neutrality between different religions and between religion and non-religion.
In India, the term 'secularism' was introduced in 1976 by the 42nd Amendment to the constitution. Indian secularism is characterised by positive or inclusive secularism, which involves equal respect and support for all religions by the state. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all citizens and prohibits discrimination based on religion. This is enshrined in various articles of the Constitution, such as Article 25 and Article 26.
The Canadian context of secularism and freedom of religion is also notable. While the Charter mentions the supremacy of God, this does not reduce the scope of freedom of religion. Canada interprets secularism as accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs and practices, rather than requiring individuals to leave their religion outside the public sphere. Canadian law prohibits discrimination based on religion in various statutes, including the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Electoral College: A Constitutional Conundrum?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A progressive constitution would provide Americans with the general right to vote in federal, state, and local elections, regardless of their carceral condition. It would also establish voting rights and congressional representation for residents of federal territories, including the District of Columbia, which would become a state.
A progressive constitution would regulate campaign expenditures and contributions to mitigate the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and organizations over elections. It would also eliminate the Electoral College, replacing it with a national popular vote for President, conducted through ranked-choice voting.
A progressive constitution would reinterpret the First Amendment to provide clear protections for the growing number of Americans who are spiritually inclined but not religiously affiliated. It would also explicitly include a limitations clause for the exercise of all rights, bringing it in line with other modern constitutional democracies. Additionally, it would expand upon existing rights and freedoms, such as women's suffrage and the introduction of an income tax.
