This Paper Can Save the World: Suggesting Amendments to the American Constitution
The founders of United States knew that it was systemically perfectible, rather than perfect. As an homage to that realisation they included a method for amending the central document, so that when times changed the nation would not be inhibited by archaic processes. Unfortunately, as time has passed our reverence for the constitution as it stands has increased to an almost ridiculous level. Though we are empowered to amend it, we seem to feel as if that betrays our American sensibilities. In truth, though, to not amend it is the greater betrayal. Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend of Shay’s Rebellion that, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing… it is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government… the tree of liberty must be refreshed.” Amendments are less radical methods of refreshing that tree. Both must have a wide popular base if they are to approach success, but even their attempts can speak poignantly of a pressing issue.
Herein, three attempts will be made: the first, to allow our government a greater flexibility by facilitating extensive revision of the constitution every twelve years; the second, to explicitly prohibit any interaction between church and state; and the third, to bring all citizens to a similar economic level. These reforms, though they are not likely to pass in any political climate, beg consideration of the issues they regard.
The first, that attempts a comprehensive and recurring update of our over two-hundred year old constitution, is of greater importance than the other two. The enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote that “no sovereign could say: ‘What this man is going to want tomorrow I too shall want,’” (Rousseau) and no more could a sovereign say that of a document. The constitution chains us to an old mode of thought, and while the amendment process as it stands allows us to loosen and squirm within our chains the amendment now proposed would allow us to cast them off entirely.
The text of such an amendment would run as follows: “The constitution of the United States as a whole shall be brought under revision every twelve years. The revision process shall begin on the tenth of January and be terminated before one year has elapsed. Until the revisions are completed, the old version shall hold full power. The constituents of the Constitutional Revision Committee (CRC) shall be four in number for each state and elected separately from the sitting senators and representatives. No office holder is eligible for election to the CRC. The final document must be approved by a super majority of the delegates and cannot exceed thirty pages. The Constitution must remain a framework for the operation of the country and no transient measures may be taken within it. The revisions must regard only systemic issues. This amendment cannot be edited by the CRC, but is in every other way a regular amendment to the constitution and can be repealed by the legislature. If the population at large can demonstrate the support of two million individuals a national referendum may be called on the revised document. A simple majority will cause the revisions to be discarded and a reversion to the previous constitution.”
The particularities of the amendment will now be explained. The time limit of one year is given so that the delegates are compelled to flesh out any apparent and bipartisan difficulties with the constitution immediately. It is a long enough period to allow ample discussion, yet short enough to prevent total gridlock. Office holders are not eligible to become members of the CRC for two reasons: first, so that the stigmas and corruption of Washington do not carry over into the revision process; and second, so that the body executing the instructions remains apart from the one issuing and editing them, else many of the restrictions would quickly be dismissed. The constitution can never exceed thirty pages so that it will remain accessible to the population.
An amendment of this kind would allow our nation to adapt to changing conditions both inside and outside its borders. The amendment would enable passage of many of the reforms proposed and supported by the masses that never gain traction in congress due to the threat they pose to the regime. This amendment is not a partisan issue, simply a pressing one. Though it is quite easy to do so, we must not treat the constitution as a perfect document. As the metal that composed swords in centuries passed must be reforged to form firearms as the world revolves, our constitution must be similarly altered.
The second, that would cordon the church away from the state, should be a self evident necessity. Even when the church enjoyed a greater prominence in society, sequestering it from public policy was weightily considered. The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but it does not prohibit interaction between state and religion. The lack of explicit separation has allowed the government to block human embryonic research, fund faith-based charity initiatives, subsidise religious charter schools, and so forth. (“Church And State Should Be Separate”) This amendment would prohibit the government from recognising religion as anything except its function – viz., charitable religious initiatives would be recognised simply as charities, etc. Thus a grounded view of the results produced by the initiatives would not be confused by theology.
The composition of such an amendment follows: “Any interaction between the state and the church is hereby prohibited. The government shall not recognise religious institutions as such, rather it will fix its gaze upon the effect rendered by the institution and act accordingly.”
There is no reason to perpetuate the liaison presently uniting church and state. A healthy separation of the two has already lead to the vibrant religious communities that we now enjoy. Compared to nations with a state church, the United States has a very high rate of religious attendance and interaction. The competition produced by the government’s partial indifference is an aid to the church, not a hindrance. This amendment would make that indifference complete. Furthermore, President Obama has repeatedly emphasised that the United States is not a Christian nation, nor even a religious nation (“Church And State Should Be Separate”). His assessment is a correct one. The fiber that binds our nation is not born of a common theology, but a common inclination toward liberty. Placing particular pieces of our society above others because of a religious affiliation infringes upon that liberty.
The third, that would level the economic standing of every American citizen, thereby promoting a true equality of opportunity and forming a meritocratic society, and reorganise the American government along communal lines, thereby formulating a more responsive democracy. As the nation stands now it can scarcely be called democratic; the influence exercised by prominent corporations and their peripherals has usurped nearly all the power allotted to the people. Capitalism is an autocratic system, it simply does not mesh with democratic ideals. The economic and political system adopted by the anarchist of the Spanish Civil War was shown to alleviate much inequality without depressing production. (Orwell) This amendment tailors a similar system to the American theatre.
The full text of the proposed amendment can be found in Appendix A.
Rousseau wrote that equality under the law in an essentially unequal society “is only an appearance and an illusion; it serves only to keep the poor in their wretchedness and sustain the rich in their usurpation.” (Rousseau) This amendment would abolish that static status quo and allow for genuine socioeconomic dynamism. Each soul would be able to follow their own inclination, without worry for profit. There are those among us that would teach, were they better compensated; that would push against the edge of knowledge, were they able to afford the education; that would massage the masses with rhetoric, had their birth allowed them the means. Some are capable of transcending those difficulties, but that transcendence is not something our society should demand. With this amendment implemented our personal economy would be dictated by the throes of our personal genius. In Walden Pond Henry David Thoreau wrote that “little is to be expected of that day… if we are not awakened by… our own newly acquired force and aspirations from within.” Not only would the majority of people enjoy an increase in their economic standard of living, but all would enjoy an increase in their moral living – from that satisfaction and integrity of being gleaned through the knowledge that we are doing exactly what we want to be.
Structural reform is naturally coupled with the meaningful economic reform. A communal system of governance allows the individual to have greater weight in the politics that effect him each day. The national government is stretched too thin. It was designed when our nation had just above a hundredth of the citizens that it now does. The mechanisms are strained, and perform poorly. The division and allocation of power implemented with the amendment would help to alleviate that strain and adapt the government to its much larger league of subjects. (Montesquieu) Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote, “if I had had to make choice of the place of my birth, I should have preferred a society which had an extent proportionate to the limits of the human faculties; that is, to the possibility of being well governed… and in which the pleasant custom of seeing and knowing one another should make the love of country rather a love of the citizens than of its soil.“ (Rousseau) His vision is one to which we all can relate, this amendment would bring it closer to reality.
Overall, the first proposition is the most pressing. It is more than a reform. It is an invitation to debate all that has been made sacred by history. Even if the changes it brings are minuscule, the avenue that it opens is essential. We cannot afford to remain stagnant in the face of time. Our constitution is indeed the foundation of our country, yet we would not live in a building built upon a foundation from that era; both must be brought up to date.
APPENDIX A
The second amendment.
A) As socialist economic policy has been shown to be an efficient system this bill mandates the reorganisation of all American business enterprises in such a way as to distribute the decision making evenly across all levels of employment. It is suggested that this be realised by creation of a council elected by all employees to preside over the enterprise’s policies. All profit would be absorbed by the national body for later redistribution.
B) As communal political policy has been shown to enhance individual sovereignty, the government, as it stands, would be abolished and replaced as follows:
1) National
a) Ten principalities shall be formed, each consisting of similar populations; an executive shall be popularly elected from each principality every two years – the elections shall be staggered so five members are up for election each year –, a chair-executive shall be elected by the nation as a whole every four years. These executives shall constitute an executive council charged with conducting the nation’s international course. They will have no domestic power.
b) Each state will elect one representative to a body charged with ensuring national cohesion. They hold legislative power to only that extent. They are also charged to allocate funds evenly by population between all principalities.
2) Principal
a) Each principality will be governed by a bicameral legislature in the fashion presently in place nationally.
b) California is hereby split into North California and South California. The split occurs at the southernmost edge of Hanford and runs across the state parallel to the equator. North and South Dakota are hereby merged into a single Dakota.
c)The principalities are constituted as follows: Northwestern Division: Washington, Oregon, North California, Nevada. Southwestern Division: South California, Arizona, New Mexico. Midwestern Division: Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado. Southern Division: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi. Southeastern Division: Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. Eastern Division: North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia. Northeastern Division I: Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. Northeastern Division II: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine. Mideastern Division: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri. Oceanic Division: Hawaii, Alaska.
d) All funds not consumed in projects on the principality level are distributed equally to the constituent states by population.
3) State
a) All state governments are hereby abolished, in the vacuum that is created a referendum is to be held wherein the citizens of each state will decide their form of government. All forms are permissible so long as they are incapable of violating the first ten amendments.
b) Except for funds employed as democratically decided by the state, all funds will be distributed to the towns and rural population equitably by population.
4) Etc.
a) Towns and so forth will be responsible for establishing a communal lifestyle in which each receives according to their needs and gives according to their means. Alternatively towns may adopt a flat distribution of wealth in which each citizen is given an equal sum. Such a sum is expected to range between $20,000 and $60,000 per person over eighteen without taxes, dependent upon the level of luxury provided universally by each state, principality, and town.
b) If a citizen is not involved in useful work they will not receive any money. Useful work will be determined by the courts.
C) The judiciary retains its present form except that it progress to principality-level before realising national level. At principality level, judges are appointed by a committee formed of the population-sensitive branch of the aforementioned bicameral legislature.
D) No additional funding is required, all present wealth and debt will be consumed by the national government and promptly redistributed equitably – wealth naturally shall cancel out debt. Universities and charitable institutions will retain any endowment so long as they do not employ the funds to create wealth imbalances.
E) The transition will begin at the date of this amendment’s passing and be complete no later than January 1, 2012.
Works Cited and Consulted
- “Church and State Should Be Separate.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Centre. Gale. Web. 18 Jan. 2010.
- De Secondat Montesquieu, Charles. The Spirit Of The Laws. Colonial, 1900. Print.
- Dreisbach, Daniel L. “Church and State Should Not Be Separate.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Centre. Gale. Web. 18 Jan. 2010.
- Johnston, William J. “An Understated Yet Pressing Political Issue.” IVWriting.com. Intravenous, 23 Apr. 2009. Web. 18 Jan. 2010.
- Johnston, William J. “On Anarchism.” IVWriting.com. Intravenous, 30 Nov. 2008. Web. 18 Jan. 2010.
- Orwell, George. Homage to Catalonia. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1952. 50.
- Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The First And Second Discourses. St Martin’s, Inc, 1964. Print.
- Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. St Martin’s, Inc, 1964. Print.
- Photo by “Mr. T” / Used with Permission
I agree heartily with #2, yet such absolute separation between church and state is nearly impossible. This “wall of separation” is relatively successful today, in my opinion; it’s prevalent in all public schools today — even time periods set for prayer have been renamed to periods of “reflection” or “moments of silence.” About stem cell research — it involves more than religious reasons; it’s also about ethics, just like abortion. The point is, religion controls so many people in this country. These people, then, have their say in the government. Sure, this weakens this separation between church and state, but I fail to see how we can fix this “problem” without infringing upon our liberties.
Going by the 12-year plan, a President has the chance of either going through one constitutional revision or none– but at least once every 12 years, President will be elected knowing that the constitution will definitely not change during his term or two terms. Is that fair? Should it matter?
“All forms are permissible so long as they are incapable of violating the first ten amendments.” well you bill kind gets rid of 9 and 10… also “As socialist economic policy has been shown to be an efficient system”… not true… Greece failed other Europeans countries failing U.S.S.R failed. From 1776 to 1913 our economy grew incredibly quickly while the value of the dollar went UP 13% in a free market when the Federal Reserve and Income tax were created in 1913 all the way up till now the value of the dollar has decreased by 92% and we are at 100% GDP.. doesn’t sound like it really works. Sounds like it (kinda) works for about 20 years (usually less) then fails.
Your perspective on nearly all issues exhibited in this paper is fundamentally flawed. Your central thesis works on the assumption that the Constitution needs to reformed through amendments. In reading this paper cold, one assumes you do not recognize that the Constitution is amended nearly every day. The purpose of amendments, as the refreshing change you purport them to be, was to address major flaws or address serious concerns that arise from the written Constitution. Such examples include term limits, slavery, etc. Major changes. What you fail to recognize, though, is that minor changes that ultimately result in big changes to the Constitution happen through Supreme Court rulings and common law. For example, the Commerce Clause could have been interpreted in a variety of ways. Instead, it has most recently been interpreted as to allow socialistic systems (one such reference is to soon to be Kagan’s remarks that the government could dictate what food each individual eats daily, as it relates to interstate commerce). See also interpretations of eminent domain to allows the government socialist-esque power over lands and private property. Yet, you still assert that a socialistic amendment is needed. Allow me to finish my comment by assaulting your assertion that, “As socialist economic policy has been shown to be an efficient system…” Clearly you have involved your mind in too much Marxist theory (and yes, I have read Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto) and allowed it to stray from the teaching that is history. Socialistic systems do not work. Have you read about the situation that Greece is in lately? Are you aware of the dangerous precipice the Euro stands on as its formerly increasingly socialistic member countries fall? Part A of Appendix A is appalling and your ill-thought idea expressed therein undermines your credibility as any semblance of an economist. For my own intellectual curiosity, I would also like to know how a government that dictates the lives of its citizens can also enhance individual sovereignty.