- If Pakistan has sympathy for Kashmiri youth, they shouldn’t provoke them to attack army camps: Mehbooba Mufti
- Dhaka cafe attack mastermind, 2 others killed in police encounter
- Rio 2016 review: What they did at home, what in Olympics
- Buzz of change in Maldives, Mohammed Nasheed flies secretly to Lanka
- Kashmir: Police constable shot dead by terrorists
As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official reaches a considered judgement that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves, might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.
- In Kashmir, so-called solutions are riddled with contradictions and divisions
- Why personal, social and political self-identification of Dalits must count more than legal nomenclature.
- The draft surrogacy bill violates the fundamental right of people to choose modes of parenthood
- Realpolitik drives Myanmar’s outreach to India and China
- Epidemics in India are seldom followed by a long-term response
- Pakistan army has a battle to win: The corruption within