If you could propose one constitutional amendment knowing that it would seriously considered and had a good chance of passing, what would it be and why?I'd like to see something to change the malapportionment of the Senate. I'm really not sure exactly what; it's not worth even thinking about since it's so unlikely to happen. You could I suppose have between one and five Senators per state instead of two each; you could have two Senators per state, but have their vote within the chamber proportional to the population of their states. I do like the small Senate...as I said, I'm not really sure how I'd do it, but I'd want to try to alleviate the apportionment problem without destroying what I like about the Senate.
There are a number of relatively minor constitutional amendments I'd go for if I could be king for a day. I'd remove the minimum ages for federal offices. I wouldn't eliminate the electoral college, but I would eliminate electors -- there's absolutely no justification for the possibility of unfaithful electors. Oh, and I'd make the District a state.
Why do you prefer making the District a state, instead of retroceding it to Maryland for the purposes of Congressional representation?
ReplyDeleteTo balance off the malapportionment of the Senate a little bit. Cities are underrepresented.
DeleteThe one thing that would have the most impactful effect would be an amendment mandating that all elections for federal office be publicly funded. That would get constituent representation back to where I believe the founders intended - front and center. Of course, it would have to be after the economy recovered because out of work lobbyists are probably worth a point in the unemployment rate.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need an amendment to admit a state. The Dems could have admitted DC in 2009, thus instantly creating two new Dem senators and several Dem representatives. Rove would have done this in a heartbeat if the situation were reversed. I suppose the Dems failed even to consider this because they're (a) feckless and (b) afraid of the Fox News / Limbaugh backlash, which in turn is because they're (c) feckless.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there's an obstacle to amending away the malapportioned Senate -- the Framers thought of that and specifically provided in Article V "that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." In other words, that's the one feature of the Constitution that you can't amend. Since increasing the number of senators in even one state would deprive all the others of their "equal suffrage," basically you would need the states to agree to this unanimously.
Now, if you had the requisite 3/4s, you could try for an amendment striking that clause from Article V, but the squawking on the right would be deafening (assuming the right wasn't already on board for the change to the Senate). If you thought broccoli mandates were idiotic, wait 'til you see the case they'd make to the Supreme Court on this one. And this time they'd have a point, because the Framers clearly did intend -- or, at any rate, grudgingly agree -- that the Senate was meant to be malapportioned and would stay that way for all eternity.
This, of course, is how they got the small states to agree to join a union that they feared would be dominated by big states. I suspect it would be small states--as opposed to the right--who would object to changing it today.
DeleteI'm just saying that the right would take up the cause of the small states, and that would be the big obstacle. "Small states" don't have TV networks and syndicated radio shows and sycophantic newspaper columnists; it's the right that has these things, and that organizes political opinion within most of the small states (by influencing / sponsoring / funding / lobbying governors and state legislators and candidates).
DeleteI am, however, talking about current political conditions. There are probably scenarios -- although I'm not seeing one specifically just now -- under which the right would decide that it wants the change in question, and would then deploy the aforementioned apparatus to bring it about.
I don't disagree with that, but your Vermonts, Rhode Islands, and Delawares could be squeamish about it, and, as you say, every state would have to agree.
DeleteWhen the "Great Compromise" established the Senate in 1790, Virginia, the largest state, was about 10 times the population of the smallest state; today, California's population is over 70 times the size of the smallest state's population (Wyoming) ... and the gap is widening. Methinks this discrepancy shall not stand forever... perhaps we should "re-state" the Great Compromise?
DeleteYou could amend the Constitution to correct the malapportionment, but only if the ratification were unanimous.
ReplyDeleteYou could also abolish the Senate, thereby maintaining equal suffrage among the states.
ReplyDeleteThe house is apportioned geographically, so to be different, how would you like to apportion the Senate?
ReplyDeleteAll -- I was basically taking the question as an excuse to cheat a bit on the Senate. Of course, you are all correct on the Constitutional protection of the Senate; I was taking the question to give me a chance to override that.
ReplyDeleteOn the District -- yup, you don't need an amendment, although as Matt says in the other thread you would have an oddball leftover situation if you didn't do it. A Dem majority could sort of force a Constitutional amendment by passing a statehood bill and leaving a handful of Dems as the only voters in the remaining federal district, and then bring up the Amendment to get the proper result; Republicans, if they opposed it, would be giving the Dems three extra EVs for no reason.
I would introduce a sunset clause for all federal and state laws of 40 years or so. I'd like to see a situation where every prohibition and every tax cut is aired out and re-discussed prior to renewal on a regular schedule. You'd have to phase it in, however; otherwise, it'd be too much work all at once. But it would also give Congress something productive that they would have to accomplish. What did they get done this year, less than 30 laws?
ReplyDeleteNo "General Right to Vote"? No clear definitions which powers belong to the federal level, and which to the states and the people? No path for Puerto Rico to become a state, if it voted for it? No rule that a federal law would provide a set of conditions, which, if fulfilled, would get a presidential candidate on the ballot in all states, without any state being able to remove them on its own? No declaration that Twilight Sparkle is best pony?
ReplyDeleteA Universal Suffrage provision was left out... it should have been in the Bill of Rights. George Mason, mentor to Madison and Jefferson, wrote a universal suffrage provision into his (June, 1776) Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was the basis for the Declaration of Independence and later for the Bill of Rights, which Mason, leader of the Virginia Delegation, insisted upon before he allowed Virginia to ratify the Constitution.
Delete