Not long after the Framers of the American Constitution created it the debate about how to change it began. The so-called Originalists argue that it is a sacred document and therefore not subject to any need for revision. Others believe instead that the Constitution must be adaptable to meet the evolving needs of people now and in the future.
The argument for a Living Constitution can be found within the document itself. There are only seven articles and one, Article 5, enshrines the process for Constitutional Amendments.
Another argument for a Living Constitution is the fact that the Constitution has already been amended 27 times.
Three additional arguments for flexibility also suggest themselves for consideration. 1. The Framers wrote and submitted the Document during stressful and volatile times often choosing vague and non-specific language in order to mollify competing factions. 2. Even a cursory review of the 27 amendments reveals them to be overlapping and poorly worded. And 3. The fact that the Amendments are amendments and not Articles speaks to the possible perception that they are secondary and of lesser importance.
Articles 1, 2, and 3, which define the three branches of Government (Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts), establish the all-important principle of Separation of Powers and must stand as written!
Articles 4 and 6 establish the sovereignty of the states under the umbrella of the Federal Government and regulate the rights and responsibilities of each state as regards the others. Article 6 also speaks to the Separation of Church and State by stating that no religious doctrines will be used to qualify candidates for public office. Articles 4 and 6 could and should be combined but otherwise unchanged in order to protect the unity of the nation.
Article 5, as mentioned already, outlines the continuing necessity for amendment procedures in order to ensure the required flexibility of the Document.
Article 7, the ratification procedures Article, is woefully out of date. It was written at a time when the United States consisted of only the 13 original colonies.
All of the 27 massively overworded and redundant amendments do one of two things: restrict the power of government or protect the individual freedoms of the citizenry. With a few exceptions, a very short and succinct statement is all that is required.
Proposed: The American Constitution needs to be rewritten and re-ratified!
According to the vision outlined above, the Newly Revised and Improved American Constitution would retain the six original Articles, with the proviso that the original Articles 4 and 6 would be combined, and a new seventh Article would be added to replace the amendments. The New Article 7 could be as short as a sentence or two, such as: All American citizens, subject only to their continued obedience to the Law, shall retain sovereignty over their own personal freedoms, and the Local, State, and Federal Government’s sole responsibility will always be to protect and defend the Rights of its Law-abiding citizens equally and without favoritism, remaining always non-discriminatory, neutral, unbiased, and blind to considerations of power, wealth, or influence.
The constitution was written by slave-owning capitalist patriarchs to establish white supremacy. End it.
Leon: You said the constitution was written “to establish white supremacy. Neither history nor the facts support that claim!
The amendment procedures were included in the Constitution of September 1787, it was very clear how to revise it, as you said, in Article 5, so there was no “debate about how to change it,” as Congress did so with ten amendments in 1791. The “how” was not an issue, the content of those amendments was debated and enacted.
Originalists know that. See “The Liberty Amendments” by prominent Originalist Mark Levin who proposes specific amendments.
1787 was four years after the victory over Britain, and was not “during stressful and volatile times,” relatively, the convention was not in a hurry. The “vague and non-specific” parts are purposefully general so that Congress, the courts, and the executive apply them to specific circumstances.
Any perception that an amendment is of lesser importance than an article is incorrect. Amendments are integral.
Article 7 is a relic of the original ratification, to show that a 9/13 majority of states supported the Constitution. But the amendment process is well covered in Article 5. The two amendment pathways, either by Congress or a convention of states, require supermajorities.
Your concern about “to protect and defend the Rights of its Law-abiding citizens equally” is covered by Amendment 14, Section 1.
We don’t need a new Constitution. The federal government should abide by the current one. Oversized government effectively grew a fourth branch, the bureaucracy that some call the deep state because the 9th and 10th Amendments have long been ignored.
If we ever have a renaissance of liberty and personal responsibility, then future amendments would include abolishing all subsidies and nondiscretionary spending; abolishing income, payroll, gift, and death taxes; prohibiting value-added taxes; requiring balanced budgets (except during emergencies and 80% congressional supermajorities, compensated with post-emergency surpluses); federal spending limited to no more than 10% of GDP except during supermajority emergencies, to be compensated with lower spending during non-emergency times.
The constituency for such a downsizing of government is a small minority. Our best hope is to elect those who respect ordered Liberty and our good but imperfect Constitution.
A thoughtful and valued response Richard. Thanks!
You gave me a useful tip when you suggested, “See “The Liberty Amendments” by prominent Originalist Mark Levin who proposes specific amendments.” Will do.
I liked this comment: “The federal government should abide by the current one. Oversized government effectively grew a fourth branch, the bureaucracy that some call the deep state because the 9th and 10th Amendments have long been ignored.” It is time for us to stop ignoring the National Laws, and a national debate on these matters, as I have suggested, would be a great start.
In you next to last paragraph, you said, “If we ever have a renaissance of liberty and personal responsibility, then future amendments would include abolishing all subsidies and nondiscretionary spending; abolishing income, payroll, gift, and death taxes; prohibiting value-added taxes; requiring balanced budgets (except during emergencies and 80% congressional supermajorities, compensated with post-emergency surpluses); federal spending limited to no more than 10% of GDP except during supermajority emergencies, to be compensated with lower spending during non-emergency times.” I find very little to disagree with in your idealistic prescription. I particularly like the balanced budget stuff. I like the abolition of subsidies a lot. I have often said that government should not pick winners and losers, but I think that a future subsidy, when it is at the will of the people, would be acceptable.
You finished by saying, “The constituency for such a downsizing of government is a small minority.” And “Our best hope is to elect those who respect ordered Liberty and our good but imperfect Constitution.”
As to the first part, I see it as less of a downsizing of government as a refocusing and recommittment to the values of our Forefathers from the 1700’s. As to the last part, I agree that the best people to elect are those “who respect ordered Liberty and our good but imperfect Constitution,” But I am unsure as to whether you and I will always agree as to who that would be.