I’m putting this in GD rather than IMHO because of its potentially political content and because I want to give posters the chance to contest the wisdom/language of amendments that are offered up.
Let’s say that two-thirds of the Senate and the House and three-quarters of the state legislatures call you up and ask you to conceive and draft the next amendment to the Constitution. How would you do it? What pressing societal problem or ambiguity in the legal or political landscape is most in need of solution by amendment? And how would you word that amendment to achieve just the right balance between elegance, concision, practicality, and necessary ambiguity?
If you don’t have one of your own, feel free to take issue with amendments that others propose. Here, for example, is my sacrificial offering. I would amend the Ninth Amendment as follows:
“The fact that some rights are listed in this document does not mean that there are not others that are also constitutionally protected. We do not presume to be able to provide a comprehensive list of these unenumerated rights, because the law is informed by morality, and morality is informed by society, and society is a living, breathing, changing thing. We are sure that there will be situations in the future that we cannot hope to imagine, in which it is crucially important that a previously unconsidered right becomes safeguarded by the judiciary. In fact, there exist unenumerated rights which right now deserve recognition and protection. But no, we are not telling you what they are.”
Okay, the Dave Barry-esque royal “we” might be a little glib. But the substance is there. Anyone else?