Some of the talks on the debt ceiling have sparked my interest in a topic that I have always enjoyed: revising the U.S. Constitution. I actually am 80-90% sure that not only has this topic been done before but I think I’ve even participated in earlier threads on this same matter. Nonetheless, I think the time is ripe for this topic.
I should also say that I think our current system of government is very good, has worked pretty well for over 200 years, and 9 times out of 10 it works fine. So while I do think my proposed changes to the Constitution are improvements, it’s along the lines of “making things better” not “fixing an irreparably broken system.” I don’t feel that is the state of our country right now, current crisis notwithstanding.
Anyway, here are my proposed changes, broken down by branch of government:
Legislative
[ul]
[li]Bills passed by the House and approved by the President can become law without approval of the Senate, but not until 12 months after they are signed. Laws dealing with revenue or the management of the treasury/debt only have to wait 30 days to take effect.[/li][li]Bills passed by the House by a 3/5ths majority or greater and approved by the President can take effect immediately, without Senate approval.[/li][li]The number of Representatives in the House shall no longer be fixed, but shall strictly be based on population. The smallest state by population shall receive 1 representative, every other state shall receive a number equal to how many times their population can be evenly divided by the population of the smallest state. As a quick note this would give us about 100 more Representatives and California would have around 65, Texas around 45 etc.[/li][li]The District of Columbia will receive voting representation in the House, following the same rules as to their number of Representatives as if it was a State.[/li][li]Presidential veto override rules are changed. A veto can be overridden by a 3/5ths supermajority in both houses, or a 2/3rds majority in any single House.[/li][li]House of Rep. members shall be elected to serve 4 year terms.[/li][/ul]
Judicial
[ul]
[li]SCOTUS Justices will now be appointed for 20 year terms, non-renewable. Death or retirement of the Justice means a new Justice must be appointed to a new 20 year term, there are no ‘vacant’ terms that have to be ‘filled’ by temporary appointments, anyone appointed is appointed for the full time.[/li][li]The SCOTUS will have 13 members.[/li][/ul]
Executive
[ul]
[li]The President will serve a single six year term, non-renewable.[/li][li]The President will have the power of line item veto, essentially identical to the power as it existed in the 1990s briefly. These vetos can be overridden just like others under the new rules.[/li][li]The President shall have the power to dissolve the House of Representatives. Upon dissolution the sitting House can continue its business but elections must happen within 40 days and new members are sworn in 7 days after the election.[/li][/ul]
Justifications:
My changes to the legislature are pretty obvious in their intent. I’m essentially advocating for a much stronger legislative branch. When the Constitution was written Congress was divided in two and subject to a powerful Presidential veto because on paper the Congress was vastly the most powerful entity. The true role of the President was essentially left for Washington and his successors to define. What has happened over the following 200+ years is I feel the President has become ever more powerful while the Congress has become ever more prone to extreme grid lock. Since about 2003 essentially any business that goes through the Senate has to go through with a 3/5ths majority because basically all contentious legislation is filibustered. Party infighting is extreme, and paralyzes the House leadership on a regular basis.
My proposals wouldn’t fix all of those issues. But they would result in a House of Representatives that would have broad power to “fast track” issues, being able to directly by pass the Senate with a 3/5ths vote. Further, the “auto-bypass” of 12 months / 30 days for certain legislation essentially makes the Senate entirely an optional part of the legislative process. However the Senate would still be able to propose new legislation, and would still be the sole entity that could approve Presidential appointments, ratify treaties and etc–so it would still be a very important part of government, not as irrelevant as the House of Lords.
The power of the President to veto has obviously been greatly reduced. This is because I essentially do not feel the one man in the White House should equal 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress. If 3/5ths of all of our representation in both Houses of Congress think something should be a law, I think the democratic process is best served by making it so. The 2/3rds of one House veto override is also justified along the same lines.
The four year house term should serve to allow congressmen to focus a little more on the business of legislating and not the business of campaigning.
I’ve increased the number of SCOTUS justices and limited their term. The increased number is because I think it helps to have a set number and I also think it is good for it to be higher than 9, just because it limits the impact of a single President on the composition of the court in its entirety. The limited term is also a two fold matter. One, it means that if a President believes they have found someone who is a great candidate for the court, but might be 60-65 years old, they would still be willing to nominate that person. Under the new era Presidents have been very hesitant to nominate justices much into their 50s, because Presidents desire their appointments to last generations on the bench so they are looking for the youngest persons who are qualified. The term limit also serves as a limit on the ability of justices to essentially cling to the bench forever. I do not feel the nation’s interests are served when octogenarian justices hold onto the court because they fear their elderly lives will be without meaning once they leave the bench, I’m sorry but the SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be there to give really old people a reason to keep on living.
With the Presidency I am limiting the term there to 6 years non-renewable. President Obama is my biggest inspiration for this. Presidents have always been very different near the end of their first terms than they are during the rest of their Presidency (if they get reelected), as they start to worry about reelection they become, in my opinion, less willing to strongly advocate issues they believe in and instead become more concerned with causing the least amount of offense and creating the fewest enemies possible.
I feel that in the best case scenario the Presidential election cycle still is about 2 years, so even a two term President you only get 6 “real” years out of them, because the second 2 years of their first term is semi-campaigning. With Obama I feel that he started behaving like a President up for reelection sometime around February of 2009. With a six year term I think you get someone in office for long enough to have an impact and they will pretty much hit the ground running on day one, and will not be worried about losing election 4 years later.
The new power of the President to dissolve the House of Reps is probably the most dramatic change to the nature of the Federal government, but I think it is an important power. The President and the Congress are supposed to and should butt heads from time to time, but they also should not enter periods in which they become permanently incapable of working together, or periods where they absolutely refuse to compromise on issues of pressing national interest. This mechanism would essentially allow a “nuclear option” for clearing up log jams. For example the current debt ceiling crisis simply would not have happened if this option was on the table, because President Obama would have dissolved the House back during the budget crisis and the debt ceiling crisis just simply would not have happened. This tool also isn’t even necessarily a guaranteed favorable thing for the President. If you look at other countries in which leaders have strategically dissolved the government sometimes the ones who wanted the dissolution actually turn out much worse after the fact. So Mr. Obama could have dissolved the House during the budget debate, and maybe a much heavier GOP house was elected, or maybe one with the same composition. That would essentially force the President to compromise as he would have tested the political waters and found the public to not be behind him. Now, nothing would force him to compromise, but I think in practice that would typically be what happens.