![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, say we agree that the Constitution was never intended to be treated as some sort of sacred, infallible document, and that it should be amended to reflect the changing requirement of the country over time. If that is the case, then what are the issues that need to be addressed in amending the Constitution? What are the areas that are creating conflict or which fail to address the realities of the United States in the Twenty-first Century? Are there any situations that simply aren’t contemplated by the Constitution, as it currently exists?
Probably, if you asked a hundred people to answer those questions, you would get a hundred uniquely different lists of issues to address. Some of the ideas might inspire others, while some would appear trivial or ridiculous to others. Wading into this swamp will probably get messy, but it seems clear that there are many issues that might be worthy of consideration.
One area that has been getting a LOT of media attention lately is gun ownership. The Second Amendment was written at a time when the state of the art for firearms was a muzzle loading musket, and the nation faced imminent threats from global colonial powers and unfriendly native peoples. Today, the technology of firearms has advanced to the point where an individual can easily carry more firepower than an entire colonial militia. At the same time, the risks of foreign invasion or of armed insurrection have become vanishingly remote. It seems obvious that the Second Amendment really could stand to be updated to reflect these changes. Unfortunately, this is one of the areas in the Constitution where it might be the most difficult to find anything resembling a consensus, making the chances of an amendment here very remote indeed.
Another area that virtually begs for attention is the way our political campaigns operate. The Constitution is silent on these issues, since the political parties and campaigns, as we know them, simply did not exist when the document was written. It seems reasonable that we might at least consider limits on the amount of money that can be contributed to such campaigns. Barring that, a stricter disclosure requirements would provide transparency, so the voters might have a chance to see who is really funding various campaigns. We also should consider implementing a Constitutional definition of corporate personhood (as distinguished from individual personhood). The idea of corporate personhood is important in civil and criminal law, as it allows us to hold corporations responsible for their actions. However, in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings, corporations now have equal footing with individuals in electoral politics. Should corporations have this much influence in our elections? This is an area that seems perfectly suited to clarification by constitutional amendment. And while we are re-evaluating our electoral processes, we might also want to have a debate about the relative merits of the Electoral College (Does it still make sense? What other models might work?) and term limits (Do incumbants have too great an advantage in our elections, and if so, are term limits, which are strongly anti-democratic in nature, the best answer?).
The Constitution is also disturbingly inadequate in addressing continuity of government during an emergency. While there are provisions that allow for the rapid replacement of Senators, and we have a clearly defined chain of succession for the Presidency, the mechanism set forth in the Constitution for the replacement of members of the House of Representatives requires special elections, a mechanism that simply does not allow the House to be reconstituted in the aftermath of a devastating attack or disaster (think about what might have happened if the fourth plane had not crashed in PA on 11 Sept. 2001). The loss of a majority of Representatives in such a crisis would handcuff the ability of the United States to respond, since any emergency appropriations for such a response are required to be initiated by the House, which would not be able to act until sufficient seats are refilled. It seems clear that we should amend the Constitution to either provide for a mechanism for filling those seats in the event of a national emergency, or provide some other mechanism that authorize the Executive to respond to the emergency during the interim.
Additionally, a long overdue issue that we really need to take up is the issue of representation for the residents of the District of Columbia. It is self-evidently unfair that the residents of DC must pay federal taxes, and that their local government is subject to Congressional oversight, but they lack any true representation in Congress. Either we need to amend the Constitution to provide them with true representation, or we should exempt DC residents from federal taxes and give them a true self-rule for local government, without Congressional oversight.
Modern technology is raising a great number of issues regarding personal privacy. While the Supreme Court has found a right to privacy to be inherent in the Constitution, it is perhaps time that the document be amended to both make this right explicit and also maybe define what the limits of this right might be. Such an amendment would help us define boundaries in this area as we move forward with new technologies.
We could go on and on...what about a line-item veto? The filibuster? War powers? Clearly, there are plenty of areas where we could amend the Constitution to clarify how it should apply or what our policy should be, or simply to address issues that simply were never contemplated when the document was written.
Probably, if you asked a hundred people to answer those questions, you would get a hundred uniquely different lists of issues to address. Some of the ideas might inspire others, while some would appear trivial or ridiculous to others. Wading into this swamp will probably get messy, but it seems clear that there are many issues that might be worthy of consideration.
One area that has been getting a LOT of media attention lately is gun ownership. The Second Amendment was written at a time when the state of the art for firearms was a muzzle loading musket, and the nation faced imminent threats from global colonial powers and unfriendly native peoples. Today, the technology of firearms has advanced to the point where an individual can easily carry more firepower than an entire colonial militia. At the same time, the risks of foreign invasion or of armed insurrection have become vanishingly remote. It seems obvious that the Second Amendment really could stand to be updated to reflect these changes. Unfortunately, this is one of the areas in the Constitution where it might be the most difficult to find anything resembling a consensus, making the chances of an amendment here very remote indeed.
Another area that virtually begs for attention is the way our political campaigns operate. The Constitution is silent on these issues, since the political parties and campaigns, as we know them, simply did not exist when the document was written. It seems reasonable that we might at least consider limits on the amount of money that can be contributed to such campaigns. Barring that, a stricter disclosure requirements would provide transparency, so the voters might have a chance to see who is really funding various campaigns. We also should consider implementing a Constitutional definition of corporate personhood (as distinguished from individual personhood). The idea of corporate personhood is important in civil and criminal law, as it allows us to hold corporations responsible for their actions. However, in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings, corporations now have equal footing with individuals in electoral politics. Should corporations have this much influence in our elections? This is an area that seems perfectly suited to clarification by constitutional amendment. And while we are re-evaluating our electoral processes, we might also want to have a debate about the relative merits of the Electoral College (Does it still make sense? What other models might work?) and term limits (Do incumbants have too great an advantage in our elections, and if so, are term limits, which are strongly anti-democratic in nature, the best answer?).
The Constitution is also disturbingly inadequate in addressing continuity of government during an emergency. While there are provisions that allow for the rapid replacement of Senators, and we have a clearly defined chain of succession for the Presidency, the mechanism set forth in the Constitution for the replacement of members of the House of Representatives requires special elections, a mechanism that simply does not allow the House to be reconstituted in the aftermath of a devastating attack or disaster (think about what might have happened if the fourth plane had not crashed in PA on 11 Sept. 2001). The loss of a majority of Representatives in such a crisis would handcuff the ability of the United States to respond, since any emergency appropriations for such a response are required to be initiated by the House, which would not be able to act until sufficient seats are refilled. It seems clear that we should amend the Constitution to either provide for a mechanism for filling those seats in the event of a national emergency, or provide some other mechanism that authorize the Executive to respond to the emergency during the interim.
Additionally, a long overdue issue that we really need to take up is the issue of representation for the residents of the District of Columbia. It is self-evidently unfair that the residents of DC must pay federal taxes, and that their local government is subject to Congressional oversight, but they lack any true representation in Congress. Either we need to amend the Constitution to provide them with true representation, or we should exempt DC residents from federal taxes and give them a true self-rule for local government, without Congressional oversight.
Modern technology is raising a great number of issues regarding personal privacy. While the Supreme Court has found a right to privacy to be inherent in the Constitution, it is perhaps time that the document be amended to both make this right explicit and also maybe define what the limits of this right might be. Such an amendment would help us define boundaries in this area as we move forward with new technologies.
We could go on and on...what about a line-item veto? The filibuster? War powers? Clearly, there are plenty of areas where we could amend the Constitution to clarify how it should apply or what our policy should be, or simply to address issues that simply were never contemplated when the document was written.
Tags:
