The people of Iceland will be updating their constitution in the coming months. What’s interesting is how they’re doing it: by polling Facebook users.
Do let’s make jokes now.
When they gained independence in 1944, Iceland pretty much copied and pasted the Danish constitution. The name for the legislature was changed from Folketing to Althingi, and the office of the king was replaced with an elected president. Almost everything else remained intact.
Their current constitution takes a few concepts from ours, but can be vague on certain matters of civil rights. Section VI establishes a state church, and allowances are made for restrictions on liberty in the name of “public order,” which is a bit vague. Then there’s this:
The law shall guarantee for everyone the necessary assistance in case of sickness, invalidity, infirmity by reason of old age, unemployment and similar circumstances.
Sound familiar?
Apparently, having the government and economy collapse can make folks a bit testy, so it’s time to start “modernizing” things, and by public referendum. Some of it is fairly progressive. The rough draft proposes equality regardless of sexual orientation and prohibits compulsory military service.
Another interesting part (with obvious origins) is section 7:
Anyone is free to gather and disseminate information.Governance must be transparent, preserve its minutes and records, and record and document all complaints received, their origin, process and outcome. Such data cannot be deleted.
A list of all documents held by government, their origin and content, must be publicly accessible.
Information and data in the possession of the government shall be available to everyone, without exception, unless urgent and justified reasons exist, such as with medical records.
So far, so good. Then we come to this little chestnut:
Icelandic nature is inviolable. Each person must respect and protect it. All are legally guaranteed the right to a healthy environment, fresh water, and unspoiled natural land where biological diversity is maintained.
That’s where progressivism goes off the rails. Wait until it comes time to enforce that.
Of course, this is only the beginning. Wait until you’ve got 320,000 people all throwing their hats in the ring. Consensus will be nearly impossible, and the resulting document will likely be a self-contradictory train wreck.
This is why we have electors in the United States. This is also why the idea of a second constitutional convention is such a wretched one. During the Great Post-Election Sulk of 2009, we heard a great many calls for exactly such a thing, with little thought to the possible consequences.
There’s nothing with our constitution that can’t be fixed. No, I’m not a fan of the sixteenth amendment, but that can be repealed. I think the Commerce Clause has been vastly perverted, but again, that can be curtailed through litigation or legislation.
With a constitutional convention, we’re talking about tearing the whole thing up and starting from scratch. It would be an abject disaster.
Consider the Bill of Rights. Representatives from some quarters would exempt Islam from the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, which they might get in exchange for a ban on “hurtful or offensive speech.” The 4th Amendment? Sure, we’d end up with a vague notion of “privacy,” but the government would be allowed to wiretap people with “extremist political views.” While we’re at it, do we really need the 3rd Amendment? I mean, when was the last time the government tried to quarter troops in folks’ homes?
Imagine the 2nd Amendment. Oh, sure, we’d likely get stronger protections for some aspects, but New York and California would never agree to ratify without some provision excepting “especially dangerous military arms.”
Is the 8th Amendment really, really relevant? I mean, why can’t we just hook up some guy’s nipples to a car battery? With a name like Amhal, he’s probably a terrorist. In this post-9/11 world, you can never be sure, especially if he fails to “respect and protect” the environment.
And on it goes. Sure, it might work in a country with half the population of Vermont, but the United States is too large and diverse for anything like this to be successful. The resulting document would be an unworkable patchwork of compromises, and it would spell the end of our way of life.
Sometimes the first idea that springs to mind isn’t always the best one.