If you could, with a wave of your hand, add one, single amendment to the U. S. Constitution, what would it be?
Some might want to repeal the 16th or 17th amendments. Some might want to repeal the 2nd amendment. Or even the First.
In the light of the coming Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the ACA I can see how some might be tempted by this:
Congress shall make no law affecting commerce within the states. For the purpose of this amendment “commerce” is defined as the act of buying and selling. [Ed.: i.e. influencing doesn’t count].
I don’t oppose healthcare reform per se. I just think that major changes demand major approval. The right way to accomplish things that aren’t within Congress’s actual enumerated powers is by constitutional amendment. Not judicial interpretation. But I don’t think that would be my first choice.
Here’s something that tempts me:
Congress shall make no law granting a pension to any elected or appointed official of the United States.
or something to that effect. I don’t know if that would be my first choice, either.
How about:
All elected or appointed officeholders of the United States should be subject to recall and removal from office by a simple majority of those voting.
with provisions for putting the measure on a ballot.
As Jack Benny said when the holdup man brandished a revolver at him and declaimed “Your money or your life”, I’m thinking it over.
Term Limits:
Repeal the 22nd Amendment and either return to the status quo ante, or make it a single six year term.
Term limit Congress to 20 years, the approximate lenth of a single generation.
Term limit SCOTUS to 20-25 years, with the added provisio that a nice pension package will be given if they do not practice law afterwards.
* * *
If I were smarter I would have a proposal to address the various national security/war provisions in the Constitution, of which there really are none other than the power of the purse. I think the Founders didn’t care too much about these things either because they didn’t foresee the nation that we became, or because they were content with the British compromise with the monarch that largely is the power of the purse. People want more limits on the executive in this area, and it would be better for the people to decide them than the SCOTUS.
I’ll stick with term limits as my one, single, multi-part amendment, but I would be tempted by an amendment that limitted gerrymandering (which I don’t think is an easy one to write, but I would likely support it, as better than the present system) or a balanced budget amendment that navigated the need for long-term fiscal restraint with immediate needs.
* * *
I’d also eliminate the “natural born citizen” requirement from the Constitution, but I sense the time is not right for that.
“Congress shall make no law affecting commerce within the states. For the purpose of this amendment “commerce†is defined as the act of buying and selling.”
Heh. Good thing that wasn’t the panty-twisting issue it is now, else there never would have been a constitution.
As for mine,
“No member of Congress, or officer under this constitution, or employee of any federal agency, shall directly or indirectly, seek to influence legislation before the Congress for a period of seven years after serving in Congress, being a officer under this constitution, or being an employee of a federal agency.”
Or some such.
sam, I think the moral of the story is that tortured adjudication creates persistent problems.
What? The founders cared a great deal about national security/war provisions.
Which people are those? Congress has the authority to put limits on the executive but they usually choose not too. The founders intended split responsibility with the buck literally stopping at Congress.
As for an amendment, I can’t think of anything offhand that would do more good than harm except maybe one that required full transparency for any money spent on political campaigns. Easier said than done though.
I’d settle for one of two,
1. all federal elections where nobody gets 50+% of the vote should require a run-off election between the two candidates.
OR
2. The electoral college votes in each state shall be awarded in proportion to the candidates running in that state.
I’d term-limit the voters.
I always say, “If you want better schools, get better students.” Similarly, if you want a better democracy.
I don’t really like strict term limits, such as “one-term-only”. I’ve seen what it’s done in Mexico, where they ban re-election for any federal office. All it does is give you a Congress full of inexperienced legislators, which strengthens the executive government.
No legislator may vote positively on a war declaration unless they have served in the military, with the following exception. If they vote for a war, someone in their immediate family ( children, grandchildren or closest possible relative) must enlist in a combat unit. Any military action involving more than 10,000 military requires explicit approval from Congress and that approval must be renewed yearly. (This needs major gussying up by some lawyerly type.)
Steve
Andy, I agree the Founders were concerned about national secuirty in the sense that was one of the reasons the Confederacy was abandoned, but they didn’t concern themselves much with a Constitional framework of limited government for national security. There are really only two Constitional limitations in the text: the power of the purse and no quartering of soldiers.
Zoom ahead a couple of centuries and we have a number of laws touching on national security, which the President routinely recognizes only in continuing dissent that Congress has no power to do what its doing, or simply ignoring Congress. And we have a SCOTUS that ignores the political branches when they provide for detention without preliminary judicial review. And four members of the SCOTUS who are willing to rely on unratified treaties as the law of the land. All of this is on top of popular expectations that America abroad should reflect our domestic values more, and that war should at some point have legislative approval at some point.
I know its an open-ended, non-solution based rant, but that’s what i was getting at.
Steve:
I think the third sentence of your proposal is summarized in three words: “We mean it!” As I see it the underlying problem is what do we do when all three branches of the federal government collude in subverting the constitution? And that all foreseeable Congresses and presidents, faced with the same incentives as their predecessors, will continue that collusion?
If the students are good enough, schools are redundant.
Similarly, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
@PD
PD Shaw,
Military authority was purposely divided between the Congress and President – IOW, you need two to tango. Also, don’t underestimate the power of the purse. Let me give you an example. One of President Obama’s campaign promises was to close Gitmo and move the prisoners there to the US. Congress prevented the President from doing that by specifically cutting any funding for those purposes. They attached those provisions to necessary legislation and the amendments passed by an overwhelming majority (I forget the exact count, but it got over 90 votes in the Senate).
Congress’s failure to restrict the President in other areas or restrict the growth of the surveillance state does not result from a lack of Constitutional authority.
Heh, perhaps the first unfunded mandate?
I’m not sure that’s possible. If all three branches agree isn’t that, almost by definition, constitutional? Note that’s different that saying it’s right or wrong or good or bad. Example: Owning people was constitutional in this country for many years. A lot of bad things were once considered constitutional.
Whereas tyranny was the exclusive province of the states. Cf. Article XII, Section 1 of the Illinois state constitution:
Depends on how you look at it. When the constitution was written interpretation of the law was not the exclusive franchise of the judiciary. That developed over time and could be considered a usurpation.
In the 18th century there was a robust tradition of legal interpretation by legislatures, executives, and ordinary citizens.
If I were king, I’d ensure that all the laws, and law enforcement agencies, of the land actually enforce the 4th amendment. Its not the same as adding a new amendment but one that needs doing and that a benevolent king might be capable of doing. Being human I’d fail at that though, so I’d add an amendment abolishing the electoral college going with a popular nation wide vote.
Plurality or majority? IIRC no president after Reagan until Obama was elected by a majority of those casting votes.
Plurality.
Didn’t think of that on first inspection but then that’s one of many reasons I should not be king.
Sure, power was a lot less centralized then and there wasn’t legal precedent for a lot of things. But who is the arbiter of last result in any interpretive dispute? Hasn’t it always been the SCOTUS?
If I were King I’d mandate that all the jack Benney skits along with the Dean Martin roast ets would become mandatory viewing………so people would effing lighten up.
So much self importance and faux concern.
Abolishing the electoral college is a bad idea and here is a pretty good explanation as to why: http://vtdigger.org/2011/02/18/brock-invasion-of-the-vote-snatchers/
And simple majority to push a recall is also a bad idea. As voters, we should vote a little more carefully the first time out. And simple majorities can lead to ridiculous vendettas, oh, like what is happening in Wisconsin. I also live in California is during the Gray Davis recall. I thought he was bad news, but the whole recall cost money we didn’t have and actually took time, effort, money and concentration away from the issues at hand. The guy had only just been reelected less than a year before. REELECTED. It’s not like voters didn’t know about him.
lee:
Here in Illinois we don’t have the initiative, referendum, or the ability to recall elected officials by any means whatsoever. Districts are among the most gerrymandered in the nation. In my lifetime four Illinois governors have been convicted of various forms of corruption in office. The state’s budget problems are among the most serious of those of any state.
Nearly all state senate and house seats are safe seats.
Our legislators won’t fix things, an alternative crop of legislators will have precisely the same incentives as the old ones did, and ordinary citizens don’t have the tools we need to make changes. I think recall is a step.