You say you'll change the constitution...
As many people probably recognize, the title of
this entry comes straight from the Beatles' song "Revolution." The full line
continues by saying "... well you know, we all want to change your
head."
Let me state up front and on the
record that I am not in favor of amending the United States Constitution for any
reason right now. Current political dialogue has five unique proposals that,
should they pass the appropriate congressional and state hurdles, could become
constitutional amendments. If any of these amendments should come to pass, it
should only be after very serious debate with regard (1) to the merits of the
item, and (2) whether or not it can be accomplished via other
means.
With that being said, there are
two ideas that clearly should never come to pass as amendments to the
constitution, two others that at least rise to the level of debate, and a fifth
that is worthy of debate, but the debate should clearly begin with someone
asking, "Is this something we can accomplish via other legislative
means?"
Let's start with the one that
may not be a bad idea, but also should be researched as to how else it can be
accomplished. Term limits in the Senate and House of Representatives. The
precedent is clearly there in the form of the twenty second amendment, which
imposes a two term limit on the president.
I find it curious that this is
arguably one of the most partisan amendments to the constitution. After
Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke tradition by being the first president to run
for a third term in office and won, the members of the opposite party moved
forward and passed this amendment. Ironic, considering that the opposite party,
the Republicans, were in the White House for all but eight years between 1861
with the election of Abraham Lincoln, and the 1912 election of Woodrow Wilson.
Grover Cleveland was the only Democrat president in that entire time
frame.
Still, the viability of this
amendment becomes secondary to the fact that it is the law of the land and I see
no inherent reason to overturn it. (At least for the foreseeable future.) So
what's wrong with extending a similar rule to Congress and the Senate? Five
terms for congress and two for the senate. (Or something roughly comparable...)
Can we accomplish this without a constitutional amendment? Possibly. Worth
looking into? I've got no problem with
that...
Now for the amendments that
clearly do rise to the level of debate that means we should at least consider a
constitutional amendment.
First is the
elimination of the electoral college. In 1913, the seventeenth amendment
changed the way Senators are chosen. Prior to that time, the governor of a
given state nominated the Senators. That pretty much guaranteed an
exceptionally partisan representation in the Senate and led to some very
righteous indignation among the people. Now there are enough states either with
a Democratic governor and Republican Senators (such as Pennsylvania) or a
Republican governor and Democratic Senators (such as California) to know that
the people might put a different weight on issues of national legislation than
they do on local concerns.
It might be
a little bit of a jump from this argument to say that there should be direct
election of the president the same way as everyone else is directly elected, but
it's worth debating. A lot of people are rightly disenfranchised in
presidential elections for no other reason than the fact that they voted for one
candidate, who did not win a majority of votes in their home state, only to see
all of that state's electoral votes go to the other candidate. I would hate to
live in Florida, where George W. Bush beat Al Gore in 2000 by less than 1% of
the total votes (no matter how you look at it). Was it necessarily right that
Bush should have gotten all of that state's electoral votes? I don't know the
answer to that question.
The downside
of this kind of amendment is actually pretty straightforward: rather than
seeing candidates focussing on certain states, they will focus too heavily on
the large cities. Will it reduce voters' disenfranchisement? Maybe, maybe not.
Let's open up the debate and see what
happens.
California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger recently said he is in favor of this next one. Although his
statement was clearly self-serving, since it would apply directly to him, I'm
actually open to this debate. Article II of the Constitution states that the
President must have been born in the United States. With this in mind, I
teasingly tell some people that this rule means that our first seven presidents
(Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, and Jackson) don't really
count as having been presidents by a strict interpretation of the constitution.
The United States declared its independence from England on July 4, 1776.
Anyone born prior to that date was therefore not born in the United States. Our
first president born since then was Martin Van Buren, otherwise known as our
eighth president.
All humor aside,
though, what is wrong with a foreign-born but naturalized US citizen becoming
president? Since I was born in the United States is there something that makes
me inherently better or more worthy of becoming president than someone who was
born in some other country but made the active choice to give up his or her
homeland in favor of becoming an "American"? I'll even take that one step
further.
The naturalization process for
foreigners who wish to become US citizens is a long, tedious, drawn-out task
that climaxes with the successful completion of an exam on US history and civics
and culminates with the new citizen taking an oath. US-born citizens are under
no requirement to pass such an exam or take such an oath. I would love to know
how many people you meet on the street could pass that
exam....
I don't think enough debate
has taken place about either of these constitutional amendments for me to know
whether or not I support them, but I definitely do support the idea of debating
their merits.
There are two others that
are absolutely without merit and clearly have no place in modern debate,
especially when that debate governs changing the constitution. I think it's
ironic that I have yet to hear what I consider to be a valid argument in favor
of either of these amendments.
The
first is a constitutional amendment that would ban flag desecration. In a 1989
decision, Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court pointed out that the only form of
flag desecration (or flag burning) that cannot be prosecuted under some other
existing laws, is when I burn my own flag, on my own property, and without
causing any danger to anyone else. In other words, the burning of a flag that
doesn't cause a spectacle and no one would pay any attention to
it.
Don't make any mistake: if you go
out and burn a flag, you deserve the indignation, ire, and contempt (if not
outright hatred) that comes from having an unpopular opinion. But if you have
something to say or do that I don't like and/or am offended by, I have no reason
to expect the constitution to silence you. In fact, I consider it one of the
strengths of this country that the constitution allows you to
speak.
The last one is the one that has
had the most written and spoken about in recent months: an amendment that
defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The arguments in favor of
this amendment have distinctly religious undertones, so let me make this point
very clear: religion has a corrupting influence on the political process, and
politics have a corrupting influence on religious doctrine, so it is best that
they are kept separate. I do not want to hear any arguments that homosexuality
is a sin, a crime against your god, or any such arguments. The reality is that
those arguments are just fronts for the very Calvinistic fear that someone,
somewhere, might be having a good time. Worse yet, they're having a good time
and doing so for the express purpose of enjoying
themselves.
Some people say that
homosexuality is not natural. Perhaps. But if I were to strip you naked and
blindfold you, then parade ten people in (with a random number of men and women)
and ask them all to hide their genders while they please you (i.e., trim nails,
trim hair, shave facial hair, use non-gender-specific body parts), I doubt you'd
be able to tell me which ones were men and which ones were women. If the
feeling is the same regardless of the gender of your pleasurer, how can it not
be natural?
Pennsylvania Senator Rick
Santorum -- a man for whom I have little respect -- made the argument that the
legitimization of homosexual behavior would lead to "polygamy, bigamy, and
incest." As long as everyone involved knows what's going on, what they're
getting into when they enter into it, and the long-term emotional and physical
requirements of it, I see nothing wrong with polygamy and bigamy. (As long as
it's even-handed. A man can have two or more wives, a woman can have two or
more husbands. If everyone's cool with that, fine.) I will draw the line at
incest, but only for genetic reasons. If they don't want children, I'm fine
with incest, too.
The argument in favor
of this amendment that I personally love is that it cheapens heterosexual
marriage. I can honestly say that I don't understand how or why this would be.
I have far too many gay and lesbian friends; if they were allowed to marry and
share in the magic that I have with my wife, that would only serve to strengthen
my own marriage, not weaken it.
You
want to strengthen marriage? Let the gay community marry. And let everyone get
bored with the fight. I sure am starting to.
Posted: Fri - April 2, 2004 at 12:11 AM