The US Constitution (as amended) is under 8,000 words long. Negotiated by delegates from thirteen disparate colonies, tired of civil war and nearly broke, the founding fathers crafted a template for democracy that has lasted for more than two centuries. An amazing accomplishment and a testimony to their forethought.
But, along the way and in the fog of negotiation, a few gaps appeared. For example, they never discussed who would replace the vice-president if they had to assume the role of president. Nor did they provide much in the way of guidance for an Article V Constitutional Convention.
The succession issue was bridged in 1967 by the 25th Amendment (as well through Congressional Acts), but the issue of a Convention remains ambiguous. Just two, among dozens of other gaps and omissions.
We are interested in your suggestions for gaps that are best be filled with an amendment.
What do we mean by “best”?
“Best” means both Necessary and Complete. A “necessary” amendment solves a problem that cannot be addressed through legislation or judicial opinion. For example, only a new amendment could repudiate the XVIII’s Amendment’s constitutional restriction on the sale of liquor, or change the age requirement as senator. “Necessary” amendments typically resolve or avoid a constitution conflict.
“Complete” means enforcing a gap right that should, as a matter of ethical or moral obligation, be made consistent across the country and among its citizens. For example, women’s suffrage or the emancipation of slaves might have slowly emerged from among a patchwork of states modifying their laws and constitution over decades. Finally bridging over this “gap” in civil and political representation. But only a constitutional amendment secures a consistent, universal and timely right spanning across our nation. A “complete” amendment also tries to anticipate the many ways it can (and will) be misinterpreted or outflanked.
Again, this list is just a starting point before a more detailed discussion:
The current list:
- Can the President break a treaty without Congressional approval?
- A more detailed and circumscribed Pardon Power right.
- Clarifying the extent of Executive privilege.
- Clarifying the limits of state sovereignty under the 10th and 11th Amendments.
- Article III establishing the Federal Courts is particularly thin, leading to an inconsistent set of precedent and traditions, rather than rulings based firmly on clear Constitutional principles. For example:
- Number of Supreme Court justices?
- Is adjudicating “constitutionality” vested solely in the Courts, or equally in all three branches?
- Clarifying standing rules.
- And generalized grievances.
- And justiciability.
- Article II.2’s Appointment Power neglected to consider removal of appointed officers.
- A clear set of guidelines for an Article V Convention.