What amendment would you add to Constitution?

This post was first published in the Wilson Times July 20.

In the fall issue of Trend and Tradition magazine, Mitchell Reiss, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s president and CEO, challenged readers to suggest changes to the U.S. Constitution — amendments to repeal or alter or new amendments to add. The summer issue of the Colonial Williamsburg magazine published several of the suggestions and put other submissions online at https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.com/learn/trend-and-tradition-magazine/trend-and-tradition-summer-2019/constitution-comments.

I took the invitation as a challenge and suggested that a new amendment make it clear that corporations are not “people” and should not be accorded rights intended for individuals. A couple of other respondents offered the same suggestion, citing court cases to back up their contention. One 1886 Supreme Court case determined the Union Pacific Railroad to be entitled to the same rights as a person. More recent campaign finance cases have affirmed corporations’ right to constitutional rights.

As you might guess, several people wanted to get rid of the Electoral College; others wanted to mandate a balanced federal budget. Revisions to the Second Amendment to clarify what is meant by a “well-regulated militia” and “right to keep and bear arms” also were suggested. Some respondents wanted an amendment to address gerrymandering of voting districts.

About a fourth of the respondents wanted term limits for federal offices, including Congress and the Supreme Court. One response suggested an age limit rather than a term limit for some offices.

A few wanted to repeal the 26^th Amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The 1971 amendment passed in part because men were being drafted into military service at age 18 but could not vote. A rallying cry held that if you’re old enough to die for your country you should be able to vote in its elections. That amendment has not had a great impact on elections because young people have not been frequent voters. On sober reflection, many people see the younger generation as not interested in serious issues and not mature enough to shape policy. One writer suggested a voting age of 25 or 30, except all military personnel would be eligible to vote.

One proposal I had not expected to see was repeal of the 17^th Amendment, which in 1913 moved the election of senators from state legislatures to the ballot box, choosing senators by popular vote. Only those with an interest in history know that senators were elected by state legislatures for the Constitution’s first 122 years until populists prevailed upon Congress and the states to make election to the Senate the same process as election to the House. The Constitution originally made the Senate representative of the states, which were considered sovereign, while the House represented individuals. The 17^th Amendment upset that balance and made the states nearly superfluous in Congress. Repealing the 17th Amendment, advocates say, would make states relevant again.

My suggestion about distinguishing individuals from corporations is just as arcane as the 17^th Amendment. I selected the corporation issue because it seemed to be the only way to limit big money influence in elections without impinging on individuals’ freedom of speech, press and assembly. Courts have declared that money is a form of speech, so spending cannot be proscribed by legislation. But corporate money can overwhelm individual donations and elect candidates beholden only to big business. The “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the 14^th Amendment, which were intended to ensure the rights of former slaves, should never have been extended to corporations by judicial decree. A new amendment is needed to correct this and to avoid more “Citizens United” decisions that allow corporations to claim rights intended for individual citizens.

The proposals submitted to Colonial Williamsburg were varied and thoughtful. These included such ideas as electing the Supreme Court or appointing the justices for only 10-year terms. Immigration caught several peoples’ attention. One wanted a revision to eliminate the “anchor baby” concept of making anyone born here a citizen immediately, leading to preferred immigrant status for family members. One suggestion: Make persons born here citizens only after one parent becomes a U.S. citizen.

These ideas are intriguing, but I remain skeptical about passage of any amendments, which require a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Amendments — fundamental changes to our founding document — should be rare.