How to Fix the U.S. Constitution
Part One of a Series — Introduction and Term Limits
INTRODUCTION — A CIVICS LESSON
As I’ve written before, I believe the U.S. Constitution is nearing the end of its useful life as written. Without major changes in its structure the United States will cease to be a functioning federal republic and could fall into any number of imaginative dystopian futures.
Major structural changes to our government would require a series of constitutional amendments, which is no easy task. Article V of the Constitution provides two paths for amendment and all of the Amendments ratified since the original convention followed the first path. In this path, a proposed amendment must be passed through both houses of Congress with 2/3 support; it then must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures in order to go into effect. This has happened seventeen times.
The second path has never been followed. It involves 2/3 of the state legislatures compelling Congress to call a convention of the states to propose constitutional amendments. Any amendments passed by the convention would then have to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The Constitution provides no instructions for how to organize such a convention, which may be why one has never occurred. Article V also provides for ratification by state “conventions” rather than by the legislatures, but likewise provides no guidance for what that would look like.
This uncertainty hasn’t stopped activists from trying to call a convention. In the 1890s a convention was nearly called to support an amendment to directly elect U.S. Senators, but Congress proposed the amendment before a convention was called. In the 1960s rural regions pushed for an amendment to override the principle of “one-person-one-vote” for state legislature districts. Conservative activists have pushed for decades to call a convention to propose a balanced-budget amendment–an attempt that has gained some steam in state legislatures today.
If the federal government becomes so hamstrung and gridlocked that major legislative efforts, reforms, and actions become impossible–on either side of the aisle–the states should take matters into their own hands and call for an open Article V Convention of the States.
Such an event would be messy and chaotic, and activists across the political spectrum would jockey for delegates at the table. In the 21st-century it’s not hard to imagine what sort of media manipulation would go on during a constitutional convention. Between strategic leaks of draft amendments, grandstanding on cable, and activists in the streets, it wouldn’t be surprising to have no proposals of merit come out of the convention at all. That said, I think an Article V Convention is the United States’ best relief valve to continue on, united by a flag and nation.
With that said, below I will enumerate some of my ideas for constitutional amendments that I believe would help make our republic more stable and functional.
STRUCTURAL AMENDMENTS PART 1
Structural amendments affect the basic ways in which our government functions and how different branches and levels of government interact with one another.
Term Limits
Term limits on federal offices often come up when discussing governmental reform. Donald Trump railed on this issue during the 2016 political season, and many activists on both sides of the spectrum see the lack of term limits on members of Congress and the judiciary as a breeding ground for corruption and gridlock. That said, I think many proponents of term limits misunderstand the importance of institutional stability and often propose limits that are laughably short. Here are my proposals:
- Members of the House of Representatives should be restricted to serving a maximum of nine terms–consecutive or nonconsecutive–which works out to 18 years. If a congressperson joined the chamber mid-term–after a special election perhaps–they would be able to serve a max of 19 years.
- Members of the Senate should be restricted to serving a maximum of three terms–consecutive or nonconsecutive–which works out to 18 years. If a senator joined the chamber mid-term–after a special election perhaps–they would be able to serve a max of 21 years.
- The President should be restricted to serving a maximum of three terms–consecutive or nonconsecutive–which works out to 12 years. If the president is elevated mid-term–after a death perhaps–they would be able to serve a max of 14 years. This need not change the longstanding tradition of presidents serving two-terms, but provides the opportunity for an additional term.
- Federal judges should be restricted to 18-year terms. District court judges should be allowed two terms, with a re-confirmation in-between terms. Appellate Court and Supreme Court judges and justices would only be allowed one term in that position. The amendment should enumerate a method for staggering such appointments and for transitioning from the existing system. The amendment should maintain that judges serve their terms in good behavior, and may be impeached and removed by Congress. Judges should be allowed to serve a full term for each advancement they make on the bench. (ex. a judge’s time on a District Court does not count towards a term on the Circuit Court or Supreme Court). In the event of an early vacancy, the president could, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint an interim judge to serve out the remainder of the 18 year term. The interim would not be eligible to continue for a full term in that position unless serving at the district court level.
Well, that’s part one. I’ll keep updating periodically with different categories of changes I think would help our government function better.
