A rhetorical question

[Steven Jamar]

It's not just about a unitary executive, is it.  One would need to  
get rid of all legislation outside of congress and all judicial  
activity outside the Article III courts.

No modern, developed, or developing society runs without  
administrative, expert agencies.  The addition of the administrative  
branch of government has been mostly a good thing.

Would I prefer a reworking of the Constitution to conform it to  
modern necessities through the amendment process or a constitutional  
convention process?  Procedurally, yes.  Substantively?  Who can  
say.  Certainly today the Constitution is nearly impossible to amend  
in a significant way due to (pick your reason).  And that is not a  
good thing.

I would prefer a Constitution that gets interpreted to move with  
necessities of the day to one that is like Brazil's which regularly  
gets amended and reworked and has far too much detail in it.

I think South Africa got it about right when they did theirs 14 years  
ago -- but that was a special moment in history.

Steve



-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                     vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law           fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW         mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008	               http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking.  
There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked  
solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070817/bd9c31a7/attachment.htm