In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Larry Sabato suggests that we scrap the constitution, convene a constitutional convention and come up with a new governing document. Such an idea shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. There may come a time when this sort of action is necessary. At this time, however, there is no such need. Today’s biggest problems stem from where the Constitution is being ignored, not where it’s being followed. But let’s look at Sabato’s list of complaints.

Restoring the war powers balance. The framers split authority concerning matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). Does anyone seriously believe that they would have approved of the executive department waging years-long wars without the explicit approval of the legislature? Yet the advantages accruing to any president — the unitary nature of the office, the swift action that only he can take in a hair-trigger world, his dominance of the televised public forum — have created an emperor as much as a president. The constitutional balance of shared war-making must be restored.

…

Now this issue I don’t want to say too much about, because there’s significant scholarly debate over just what powers the original constitution granted. Is the congressional authority to declare war a substantial power to decide when to engage war or just a declarative ability to announce what has already been decided? There are many smart legal and constitutional scholars who disagree over that answer. However, the War Powers Act already requires congressional approval, so Sabato’s point is moot. His real complaint seems to be that they granted it in the case of Iraq, but that’s something he should take up with Congress, not tear up the Constitution over.

* Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation’s people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states — and thus the unfairness — was far less.

But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let’s build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.

The entire point of each state receiving equal seats in the Senate is to ensure that the interests of smaller states wouldn’t be overwhelmed by the larger ones. What we actually need is to return to the original arrangement where the senators are appointed by the state legislatures.

Let’s repeal the 17th amendment. The Senate is not supposed to be a body that responds to every whim and fancy of popular opinion; that’s what the House of Representatives is for. Plus, it would ultimately return some power to the states by giving them more control over their senators and a seat at the federal table.

* Transforming presidential elections. Americans don’t have to be convinced that our presidential election system is broken. The nation needs a sensible system of rotating regional primaries so that it would no longer be subject to the selfish whims of a few states.

Why should the constitution address party primaries? Parties aren’t supposed to be institutionally attached to government. They are far too much so already.

The electoral college also must be overhauled, with more populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based electoral college isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if the 2000 Florida recount had to be conducted nationwide.

Well at least he has one thing right about the folly of scrapping the electoral college and moving to nation-wide, popular elections. But the larger states don’t need any more electors. Can a President really understand and represent the interests of all of America if he only has to campaign in California, Texas and New York?

* Ending second-class citizenship. We promote the cultural myth that any mother’s son or daughter can grow up to be president, but it isn’t even literally true.

The founders were concerned about foreign intrigue in the early days of an unsettled republic, so they limited the presidency to those who were “natural born” citizens. But the melting pot that is now the United States includes an astonishing 14.4 million Americans who were not born on U.S. soil and are therefore ineligible for the presidency — a number sure to grow substantially. Among them are 30,000 members of the U.S. armed forces who risk life and limb to defend those enjoying first-class citizenship.

Though I really don’t see any great need for it, this one I don’t see doing much harm. With today’s modern media and technology, there’s really no chance of an agent of a foreign power winning a national election. The scrutiny is simply too intense and the public’s access to information too great. I wouldn’t be upset if this were enacted, but it’s hardly reason to scrap the Constitution. Sabato concludes by stating that he’s “barely scratched the surface in identifying long-delayed constitutional reforms.” If he wasn’t going to list all his arguments, he could have at least picked his best ones. If these are his best, color me unimpressed.

I have a better idea than Sabato. Rather than throw out the best Constitution ever written, let’s throw out all those laws we’ve passed that blatantly ignore it.