The subject of amending the Constitution came up in the gun control case thread, and I was wondering what the forums thought should be changed in the U.S. Constitution.
Here's my list, in no particular order:
1. Modification of citizenship requirements for presidency. A simple change, but a significant one. I would alter the requirement that eligibility for the office of President is denied by an accident of birth. Currently, if an individual is not born an American citizen, he is ineleigible to be president. I believe we are sufficiently removed from the threat of British reconquest to tiptoe into the waters of the possibility of maybe having a non-native American president. The age required to be president is currently 35. I think that is a sufficient requirement for term of citizenship also.
2. Amendment concerning acquisition of territory. There is no vehicle at the moment in the Constitution regarding how the United States can expand if the opportunity arises. The only possible justification is the method for signing and ratifying treaties, but that's only an implied authority. I would add an amendment that states new territory can be acquired by treaty, land gained in the course of congressionally declared war, or by claiming previously unclaimed land. Not only would this fix an oversight by the framers, it would also provide a constitutional basis for NASA.
3. Clarification of the Commerce Clause. As it stands, the clause granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states is the basis for almost all laws passed by Congress and regulations enacted by various agencies. Supreme Court precedent holds that the federal government can regulate anything that merely travels between the states and even something that doesn't involve interstate activity at all can be regulated, relying on the possibility that it may affect commerce that could be interstate in nature. Anyone who took the time to understand the founding principles of this nation would know the federal government's powers were supposed to be few and defined. Compare that idea to the leviathan we have in Washington today, where one is hard-pressed to identify any activity that is not touched upon in some aspect by federal laws and/or regulations. This amendment would clarify the original intent of the Commerce Clause, which was to regulate ("make regular")commerce between the states and restrict them from enacting barriers to trade between them.
4. Designation of treaties as subordinate to the Constitution. Currently, treaties ratified by the Senate carry as much weight as the Constitution itself, yet they are not subject to the same controls as constitutional amendments. A simple majority of the Senate can, with the cooperation of the President, enter into a treaty that removes rights guaranteed by the Constitution. An amendment, on the other hand, must pass the Senate and the House, and the also be ratified by three-fourths of the several states in order to be carried into force. This imbalance in protections against unwanted changes from within is a threat to our freedoms. It should be fixed.
Those are the changes I could think of off the top of my head. I might have more, but I can't think of any at the moment.
Any comments on my suggestions? Any suggestions of your own?
Here's my list, in no particular order:
1. Modification of citizenship requirements for presidency. A simple change, but a significant one. I would alter the requirement that eligibility for the office of President is denied by an accident of birth. Currently, if an individual is not born an American citizen, he is ineleigible to be president. I believe we are sufficiently removed from the threat of British reconquest to tiptoe into the waters of the possibility of maybe having a non-native American president. The age required to be president is currently 35. I think that is a sufficient requirement for term of citizenship also.
2. Amendment concerning acquisition of territory. There is no vehicle at the moment in the Constitution regarding how the United States can expand if the opportunity arises. The only possible justification is the method for signing and ratifying treaties, but that's only an implied authority. I would add an amendment that states new territory can be acquired by treaty, land gained in the course of congressionally declared war, or by claiming previously unclaimed land. Not only would this fix an oversight by the framers, it would also provide a constitutional basis for NASA.
3. Clarification of the Commerce Clause. As it stands, the clause granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states is the basis for almost all laws passed by Congress and regulations enacted by various agencies. Supreme Court precedent holds that the federal government can regulate anything that merely travels between the states and even something that doesn't involve interstate activity at all can be regulated, relying on the possibility that it may affect commerce that could be interstate in nature. Anyone who took the time to understand the founding principles of this nation would know the federal government's powers were supposed to be few and defined. Compare that idea to the leviathan we have in Washington today, where one is hard-pressed to identify any activity that is not touched upon in some aspect by federal laws and/or regulations. This amendment would clarify the original intent of the Commerce Clause, which was to regulate ("make regular")commerce between the states and restrict them from enacting barriers to trade between them.
4. Designation of treaties as subordinate to the Constitution. Currently, treaties ratified by the Senate carry as much weight as the Constitution itself, yet they are not subject to the same controls as constitutional amendments. A simple majority of the Senate can, with the cooperation of the President, enter into a treaty that removes rights guaranteed by the Constitution. An amendment, on the other hand, must pass the Senate and the House, and the also be ratified by three-fourths of the several states in order to be carried into force. This imbalance in protections against unwanted changes from within is a threat to our freedoms. It should be fixed.
Those are the changes I could think of off the top of my head. I might have more, but I can't think of any at the moment.
Any comments on my suggestions? Any suggestions of your own?