And, surprise surprise, the document he’d like to replace it with has Leftist Single-Party State written all over it.

Dave Huber at the College Fix has the story:

Scrap the Constitution? And Replace It With What?

A week ago, long-time Democratic operative Donna Brazile tweeted that the United States needs “a new Constitution,” one that will “save American democracy from charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent.” She got that last part from this Salon.com article by Andrew Burstein, a history prof at Louisiana State University.

What, pray tell, would this new Constitution be like? Let’s go to Professor Burstein:

It would limit the number of terms a representative or senator could serve, so as to introduce fresh blood from a pool of more visible talent. (Does 12 years sound reasonable?) It would not allow ex-congressmen to trade on their insider connections for at least five years–which might then produce fewer power-engrossing lawyer-politicians and more–let’s be really optimistic here–systems engineer- or bioethicist-politicians, i.e., problem solvers with a useful trade to fall back on after public service.

Next, let’s reform the debased Supreme Court by reducing tenure from life to 10 years. (Honestly, who’s not tired of Scalia?)
Step 1: It would continue to conduct congressional redistricting as necessary and proper (in accord with the national census taken every “0” year), but in a wholly unbiased manner by means of a mathematically derived algorithm that combines population distribution and natural topography.

Step 2: Use tax dollars exclusively to fund national political campaigns.

That’s pretty much it at this point (he promises more in a later article), and admittedly I wouldn’t mind seeing some of his proposed changes enacted, such as term limits for representatives and senators, and even for Supreme Court justices (a ten-year term for them, however, is a bit short, in my view).

But Burstein also laments the state of general ignorance among the American population.

As you might expect from a Salon article, most of that ignorance falls squarely on the shoulders of the Right (you caught the anti-Scalia quip, right?); after all, Burstein cites polls that showed almost half of Republicans believed Barack Obama was an East African Muslim. (Of course, Mr. Obama and his minions had nothing to do with that, right?) In addition, too many Americans fall for “tired, artless old men with bad haircuts and meaningless flag pins, commingling with Tea Party obstructionists …”

To this end, Burstein wants a lot more money funneled into the education system:

Bring the best teachers to the worst schools, and pay a hefty premium to those teachers. Make a commitment to fixing these schools first. Let them shine on the outside, as a site for community pride. Give them great equipment and smaller classes. Make the learning environment of the poor superior.

How does one define the “best teachers?” Those on the left and right continue to grapple with the appropriate definition. In his piece Burstein argues against standardized testing, yet this is precisely how many — most, even — of the “best” teachers are identified … those in line for a “hefty premium” (Burstein’s words) for their performance. Since more affluent children test better, those teachers naturally will “perform better” as teachers. But would these teachers perform well in settings with poor students — in economically troubled areas?

Don’t count on it.

It’s also been demonstrated that tossing more money at education isn’t even close to being enough in terms of tackling general academic ignorance. For example, two billion dollars were allocated over a dozen years for Kansas City, Missouri schools beginning in 1985. Two billion. The results?

“Although the students enjoyed perhaps the best school facilities in the country … black students’ achievement hadn’t improved at all, and the black-white achievement gap was unchanged.”