A BETTER WAY?

I have during the history of this blog ascribed to our constitution an almost sacred quality. That is, as the basic compact between all Americans, it is a solemn agreement in which we federate ourselves with each other. But, for all that “sacredness,” it can be changed. Not easily, but we can either add some provision or we can delete some provision. My purpose here is not to go over the long and arduous process by which changes can be made, but to write about how a civics teacher can instruct students about the purpose of amendments to the Constitution.

The teacher can present students with proposed amendments and have students analyze them, determine the purpose of a given proposed amendment, evaluate it, and perhaps alter it to conform with what the students believe would be a better amendment. I would begin with a bit of advice I heard a long time ago (I think I heard this when I was high school). The advice is: when confronted with a proposed change to the Constitution, first say no and then look into it. That is, be disposed to reject our constitution; history has shown it works pretty well as it is. But from time to time, either structural and/or procedural governmental problems develop or problems with citizenship or voting rights arise, or it could be a problem with the relationship between the states. There are probably other sorts of problems that only a change to the Constitution will fix, but these are the types of problems that call for an amendment. And people engage in proposing new amendments all the time. Currently, there is a so-called 28^th Amendment movement calling for a provision which mandates that the members of Congress be equally subject to the laws they pass. Without exemption, those who pass laws might be more careful about the effects those laws might have on the rest of us – or so the thinking goes. So, in this posting, I will present two proposed amendments that are aimed at addressing current problems. They are examples of the type of proposals teachers can present to students. I will add that they are not proposals I would necessarily vote for, but I think an argument can be made for both of them.

Before presenting these proposals, let me remind you that I am not a constitutional scholar or constitutional lawyer, so the language I am using should not be seen as being adequate to the task. I am also not claiming they are optimal in terms of what they are suggesting as to the structural changes they would implement – as a matter of fact, what they suggest could be part of what students could determine is wrong with them. But despite all that, here they are:

Proposed amendment one,

1 - Upon the recorded agreement by twenty percent of the combined number of electors – known as voters – from the various state voter registries for a proposed national law, both houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) shall take up the proposed measure, as written and presented, for a vote of approval or disapproval within six months of its presentation to each body. If the proposed law is agreed upon by the houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, the proposal shall be statutory law.

2 - State legislatures shall enact legislation empowering appropriate state officials to provide federal government officials with voter related information necessary to administer this provision.

3 - This provision will be administered by the federal Department of State.

4 - Congress shall enact necessary legislation to implement this provision.

As suggested above, students will be asked to analyze this proposal and determine what current problem(s) this proposal is meant to address. I will share with you that the ongoing inability in Congress to pass any meaningful legislation spurred the idea of this amendment. What do you think? Is the current intransigence we see in Congress bad enough to call for such an amendment? And if so, is this the solution? Will it cause other problems? Is it too expensive a solution? These are the types of questions students can tackle and to which they can derive answers.

Proposed amendment two:

1 - The power to administer national elections is vested in a national election commission. The commission is comprised of seven members. The commission is to:

administer federal government's duties related to the election determining the members of the Congress, the President, and the Vice President;

determine the boundaries of the Congressional districts; and

administer a non-partisan informational and promotional program to encourage active participation on the part of the citizenry.

2 - The electoral commission is comprised of members who serve seven year terms and will serve as long as they maintain lawful status. The terms of members will be established as staggered with one new member selected every year. Each member is selected by one of various bodies consisting of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, the chief officer of the Department of State, the chief officer of the Department of Justice, and the active members of the sitting electoral commission.

3 - Members of the election commission are limited to one full term of seven years. Those initial members whose terms are fewer than seven years can be reappointed for one full term.

4 - Congress shall pass necessary legislation to administer this provision.

For this second proposed amendment, a useful line of questioning could be initiated if the teacher asks: whose power will be affected if this change were put into effect? For example, by a national body determining the composition of Congressional boundaries, state legislatures will be deprived of a very coveted power. They exercise this power every ten years after the national census. Many believe that the current inability to get things done in Washington is to a significant degree caused by how these boundaries are drawn. This was demonstrated in the 2012 election when the Democrats garnered a million more votes than Republicans in House elections, but still couldn't get control of that body. Hence, we still have divided government and we still have stymied policy makers. And another line of questioning might be about how much power a given executive administration has, under the provisions of the amendment, to determine who shall serve on the commission. Perhaps the administration should have only one choice in a given cycle and have the commission made up of five members instead of seven and have five year terms. This change to the change would have meaningful implications.

This exercise of thinking up proposed amendments is great fun. Try it. Just remember to first say no to each proposal that occurs to you.