I've been catching up on my reading lately. Seems like I was a little behind - about 215 years. That's how long it's been since the United States first amended the Constitution. And if the process appears as slow as a weapons hunt in Iraq, try reading some of those amendments. Great literature they are not.
Number 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Any idea what that means? Or try numbers 27, 25, 22, 20, and17 concerning government rites of succession and compensation. Zzzzzzzz.
Oh, there are some good ones out there. In our O.J. Simpson/Martha Stewart culture, which makes media stars of its criminal defendants, the all-time favorite is the fifth amendment. It pops up in movies, television, and courtrooms everywhere. The amendment that keeps on giving. Or, more precisely, the one that allows people NOT to give. A Best "Celler".
And there is the ever-popular first amendment, which is the founding fathers' version of a Readers Digest condensation. We got five great rights in one sentence. Advocates of states rights know the tenth by heart. If you belong to the NRA, you worship the second, the right to bear arms. Criminal defendants even got five of the first 10, which may be better than getting 5-to-10.
Yeah, our ancestors sure knew how to write the Rights in 1789. They hit most of the high points, which explains why Americans have seen fit to modify the Constitution only seventeen times since then. And two of those, the 18 th and 21 st , creating and ending Prohibition, cancelled each other out, so we have seen meaningful change only fifteen times. Eleven of those came prior to 1934.
With the myriad of issues our country has faced, we have acted to update our Constitution only six times in the past 70 years. The most recent, the 1992 amendment on compensation to members of the Senate and House, apparently took some time to discuss. It was originally proposed in 1789. And, to tell the truth, only one of the amendments in the past 70 years has actually affected the whole nation. That was the twenty-sixth, in 1971, which banned age discrimination.
Three changes had to do with the aforementioned length of terms, succession, and compensation. One gave the vote to residents of Washington DC, and one prohibited the infamous "poll tax", by which the poor (mostly southern blacks) were denied the right to vote. And, if you don't count the repeal of prohibition as meaningfully affecting the whole nation, you have to go back to 1920, forbidding sex discrimination, to find another most of us cared about.
So, with that background in mind, it boggles that mind to think that George W. Bush, a president who wouldn't be president if not for Jeb and Chad, has advocated five - count 'em five - constitutional amendments in his just-over-three-years in office. The Amendment of the Month Club.
In each instance, Dubya has gone to great lengths to point out that amendments should not be taken lightly, and that the Constitution should not be modified without good - make that great - reason. Yet it somehow happens that his personal points of view always seem to contain that great reason.
Mr. Bush has spoken out for amendments imposing prayer in public schools, banning affirmative action, banning American flag burning, banning abortion, and banning gay marriage. Part of his No Conservative Cause Left Behind agenda. So far, none have been acted on seriously, although gay marriage is still recent enough to be in the knee-jerk rally-cry stage. But there is something worrisome about a national leader who feels that his personal views always rise to code red status.
Even if you are Mr. Bush's biggest fan, you have to be concerned about tinkering with the Constitution. You may be thrilled with every one of his causes. You may see each issue as returning the country to traditional Donna Reed Happy Family values. But our system of laws is totally based on precedent, and what kind of precedent are you setting?
If you love George W, you probably hated Bill Clinton. But if you embrace the concept of wholesale modifications to the Constitution, what might happen when the next Bill Clinton comes along? Al Gore was only a judicial hairsplit away in 2000, and 2004 is up for grabs. Do you want to open the door to every president putting his (or someday her) stamp on the Constitution, just as they do now on the courts? Ban something one term, revive the next. Do and undo.
There are always going to be people who don't like certain laws and social policies. But, what makes the United States a wonderful place to live is that MOST people like MOST of the laws. Given the choice, a good portion of the world's population would rather live under our system than the one they've got. We tinker, we refine, and even 215 years later there are some issues that get nationwide attention. But five amendments in three years?
So lets not stop at just five. Cheaper by the dozen. If Dubya REALLY wants to help the American people, how about amendments to ban undeclared wars; forbid turning budget surpluses into trillion-dollar deficits; prevent the bankrupting of medicare and social security. Or one requiring presidents to receive a majority of the popular vote.
Oops, too late for all of them.