Improving the Constitution

Today’s Times presents an interesting exercise in alternative history – wholly unrelated to the alternative history that tends to find its way into their editorials as a matter or course. The question posed, most to professors, runs: if you could offer just one suggestion about how the Constitution might be improved, what would it be?

One respondent advocated for the abolition of the electoral college; yawn. That’s so 2000, and it that hoary institution protected the country from Al Gore, we should fall on our knees every night in gratitude. Of the problems facing this country, the electoral college ranks extraordinarily low on the to-do list.

Predictably, another favored abolishing the Second Amendment, concerned about its impact upon blacks. She’d be better served worrying about single parenthood as a threat to black kids. Besides, while the body count is unacceptably high, for truly industrial scale murder, only a government with a monopoly on firepower will suffice. No sane individual would run that risk. As that noted conservative clinger, HH Humphrey once said,

"the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Other commentators played around the edges: term limits for federal judges, allow naturalized citizens to be President, better define "cruel and unusual", revise the amendment process.

And some dealt with real substance. Randy Barnett urged a revision to the Commerce Clause to check federal overreach, a good idea. Another advocated for greater state power, another great idea. Still another advocated for a greater role for international treaties in American law, which is either already the law or a sneaky way to evade American tradition. And, finally, one commentator urged a more poetic First Amendment which – this IS The Times – excludes political speech by groups of people called "corporations" from its protections.

The greatest threat to America’s future, though, lies not in whether Arnold Schwatzenegger might qualify for the Presidency or the tenure of federal judges, but with the ever increasing size and scope of the federal government, especially via entitlement spending. As sages noted over the years, a democracy is doomed once the people figure out that they can vote themselves other people’s money. The Democratic Party bases its entire electoral strategy upon encouraging that pernicious tendency, unapologetically promising to take the earnings of A and give them to B, all in return for B’s vote. As GB Shaw once observed: "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

Increasingly, we’re become a nation of Pauls: folks who don’t pay taxes and live off of the earnings of others. Folks who treat the taxpayers as their baby-daddies, who think nothing of sticking their hands into their neighbors’ pockets. This represents a profound threat, both to freedom and to prosperity.

And don’t think it’s just the poor; one need look for further than the recent farm bill to conclude that while food stamps might be unwarranted welfare, so, too, are massive price supports and subsidies, and the "need" for same is even more problematic.

So, I suggest a modest proposal, along the lives of the following:

"Congress shall expend no funds: (a) on gifts to any foreign nation; (b) on gifts to any state, or any subdivision thereof; (c) on payments to any individual or entity, except in compensation for services rendered or goods provided pursuant to a valid contract entered into prior to the provision of said goods or services; (d) except in payment for property taken pursuant to the Fifth Amendment; or (e) except in payment for wrongful actions taken by governmental employs, pursuant to such standards as Congress may determine."

The left purports to object to Citizen’s United on the grounds that money in politics perverts elections. In a sense, they’re right: promising a segment of the electorate other people’s money represents the epitome of corruption. Under this proposal, that would stop. No longer would people expect to personally profit from their votes.

Of course, this restriction only applies to the federal government; the states would still be free to advance such social welfare policies as their people deem appropriate. So, for instance, people who like the MA health care experiment would be free to move there, or to importune their local legislators to adopt a similar program, leaving those in more freedom-loving states free from the expense.

Some comments to the site advocate for even more significant process reforms, such as the abolition of state representation in the Senate. But the problem with American government today is not that it’s insufficiently democratic, but that it’s insufficiently pro-freedom. Certain things are simply beyond the legitimate reach of government; this proposal would ensure that the distribution of one’s income is among those off-limits items.