Omar Bennett
The United States Constitution, the oldest written constitution in the world, has been deemed outdated and incapable of dealing with modern societal and structural problems. Scholars argue that the Constitution's pre-democratic origins and lack of amendments compared to other democracies have led to institutional stagnation, enabling extremist political factions to gain power. To address this, some propose small, low-risk constitutional changes, such as empowering the president with fast-track authority to streamline policymaking. Others suggest moving Congress to the periphery of the policymaking process, arguing that presidents are inherently driven to seek effective and durable solutions to national problems. However, critics fear that such moves may lead to presidential overreach. The Constitution does provide a process for amendments, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in Congress or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Oldest written constitution | The oldest written constitution in the world |
| Written in a pre-democratic era | Drafted before the US became a democracy in 1965 |
| Lack of amendments | Not amended much compared to other democracies |
| Antiquated institutions | Institutions like the Electoral College have protected and enabled an increasingly extremist GOP |
| Polarization | Polarization in Congress has led to gridlock and ineffective governance |
| Presidential authority | Calls for a more powerful presidency to address issues of a dysfunctional Congress |
| Checks and balances | The system of checks and balances limits presidential power and protects against authoritarianism |
| Constitutional amendment process | Amendments can be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures |
| Ratification | An amendment becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution is the oldest written constitution
- Congress is the prime source of dysfunction
- Presidents should be moved to the centre of the policymaking process
- The US Constitution hasn't been amended much
- Amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate before ratification
The US Constitution is the oldest written constitution
The US Constitution imposes a structure of government that has long been outdated and is ill-suited to modern times. Congress is at the centre of the nation's dysfunction. It is immobilized, impotent, and incapable of taking effective action on behalf of the nation. The legislative process is all but shuttered as a venue for solving problems.
Some scholars propose that the solution is to make the president the centre of policymaking. Presidents think in national terms about national problems, and their overriding concern for their historical legacies drives them to seek durable solutions to pressing national issues. A constitutional amendment could grant presidents universal "fast track" authority, which has been successfully tested in international trade over the past 40 years. This would allow the president to craft policy proposals, which Congress would be required to vote up or down on within a specified period and on a majoritarian basis, without changing them.
Another proposal is to make small, low-risk constitutional changes that promise big payoffs for effective government. For example, Congress could be moved to the periphery of the policymaking process, reducing the damage caused by its pathologies, while presidents would be moved to the centre, where they can do the most good.
Procedural Due Process: Constitutional Rights and Requirements
You may want to see also
Congress is the prime source of dysfunction
The US Constitution is often criticised for imposing a structure of government that is outdated and ill-suited to modern times. At the centre of this critique is Congress, which has been described as the prime source of dysfunction in the US political system.
Congress has been characterised as "immobilised, impotent, and utterly incapable of taking effective action on behalf of the nation". This is largely due to partisan gridlock, where the two dominant parties refuse to compromise and instead resort to "hostage-taking" tactics, holding up urgent bills until the other side agrees to make concessions. This has led to a culture of legislative inaction, where failure to act is accepted as the norm.
The polarisation of Congress into two ideologically consistent parties is a significant factor in its dysfunction. In the past, parties were more ideologically diverse, allowing for bipartisan compromises and majorities to emerge. Today, however, members of Congress view their party's interests as synonymous with the country's interests, and defeating the other party as more important than bipartisan compromise.
The legislative process has become so gridlocked that some have suggested moving Congress to the periphery of policymaking and giving the president more authority. This proposal, known as "fast track" authority, would allow the president to craft policy proposals, which Congress would then be required to vote up or down on without making changes. While this approach may improve efficiency, it raises concerns about presidential overreach and the potential erosion of checks and balances.
Despite these concerns, the current state of Congressional dysfunction has led to a widespread perception that the legislative branch is incapable of identifying and resolving major public problems. This has resulted in a lack of trust in Congress among the American public, with approval ratings for Congress reaching a low of just 7% in 2014.
Recognizing Constitutional Growth Delay in Children
You may want to see also
Presidents should be moved to the centre of the policymaking process
The US Constitution is the oldest written constitution in the world, drafted in a pre-democratic era. It has been amended very few times compared to other democracies. As a result, certain institutions that most other democracies have discarded continue to exist in the US, such as the Electoral College. The Constitution is seen by some as imposing a structure of government that is outdated and ill-suited to modern times, with Congress at the centre of the nation's dysfunction.
To address this, some scholars propose small, low-risk constitutional changes that promise significant pay-offs for effective government. One such proposal is to move Congress to the periphery of the policymaking process and give the President a more central role. Presidents think in national terms about national problems, and their concern for their historical legacies motivates them to seek long-lasting solutions to pressing national issues. They are also less susceptible to the pathologies that plague Congress.
A suggested way to implement this change is through a constitutional amendment that grants presidents universal "fast track" authority. With this authority, presidents would craft policy proposals, and Congress would be required to vote on them within a specified period, without making any changes. This would prevent delays, filibusters, earmarks, and loopholes for special interests. Congress would retain the authority to pass laws independently, and presidents would retain the power to veto them.
However, critics argue that fast track authority could lead to presidential "overreach". They worry that it might give presidents too much power, even though the entire constellation of checks and balances would remain in place to limit presidential actions, as it has for over 200 years. Additionally, the proposal assumes that presidents will act in the best interests of the nation, regardless of their political affiliation. While this may be true in theory, it assumes that presidents will always act with good intentions and in a way that benefits the country, which may not always be the case.
In conclusion, moving presidents to the centre of the policymaking process through "fast track" authority could potentially improve governance by reducing congressional dysfunction. However, it also raises concerns about excessive presidential power and assumes that presidents will always act in the nation's best interests. As such, it is a proposed solution to the issues arising from an outdated Constitution, but it is not without its drawbacks and assumptions.
The Constitution: What Was Needed to Get Started
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US Constitution hasn't been amended much
The US Constitution is the oldest written constitution in the world, and it hasn't been amended much compared to other democracies. The Constitution was drafted in a pre-democratic era, and while it has inspired many nascent democracies, other governments have updated their constitutions more frequently. The US Constitution has only 27 amendments, and none of these have been proposed by a constitutional convention.
The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. An amendment can be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Once an amendment is proposed, it becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50).
The US Constitution's lack of amendments has resulted in the retention of institutions that most other democracies have abolished. For example, the Electoral College has protected and enabled an increasingly extremist GOP, which continues to move farther to the right despite losing the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections.
Some scholars argue that the Constitution is outdated and incapable of addressing societal and structural issues facing the government today, such as immigration. They suggest that small, low-risk constitutional changes could lead to more effective governance. For instance, granting presidents ""fast track" authority could streamline the legislative process and reduce congressional dysfunction. However, others fear that such a move could lead to presidential "overreach."
Verbal Job Offers: Legally Binding Contracts?
You may want to see also
Amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate before ratification
The Constitution of the United States outlines a specific process for amending its provisions, which helps maintain its relevance over time. One critical aspect of this process is the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate before an amendment can be proposed. This high bar ensures that any changes to the Constitution reflect a strong consensus among lawmakers and safeguard against hasty or partisan changes.
The two-thirds majority vote requirement serves as a crucial check against the rushed or impulsive amendment of the nation's foundational document. By necessitating a supermajority, it encourages lawmakers to engage in thoughtful deliberation and fosters a spirit of bipartisanship. This safeguard ensures that amendments are broadly supported and carefully considered, reflecting a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.
The process of amending the Constitution begins with the proposal stage. When an amendment is proposed by Congress, it takes the form of a joint resolution. This resolution is then forwarded directly to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for processing and publication. The OFR plays a crucial role in facilitating the amendment process by providing legislative history notes and publishing the joint resolution in slip law format.
Once the joint resolution has been introduced and published, the focus shifts to achieving the required two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress. This step underscores the importance of consensus-building and negotiation between legislators. It encourages lawmakers to find common ground and work across party lines to secure the necessary votes. The high threshold also helps prevent the Constitution from being amended too frequently or without careful forethought.
After an amendment secures a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, the attention turns to the ratification process. Ratification occurs when three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states) approve the proposed amendment. This critical step ensures that any changes to the Constitution are broadly accepted across the country and not just at the federal level. The OFR plays a key role in verifying the receipt of authenticated ratification documents from the states.
In summary, the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate is an essential safeguard in the process of amending the Constitution. It promotes consensus-building, bipartisanship, and thoughtful deliberation. By setting a high bar for proposing amendments, this step helps ensure that any changes to the nation's foundational document are broadly supported and carefully considered, thereby contributing to the longevity and adaptability of the Constitution.
The Weak Constitution of 1777: Flaws and All
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution of the United States is the framework for the United States government. It is the oldest written constitution in the world.
The Constitution was written in a pre-democratic era and has not been amended much compared to other democracies. It has been argued that the Constitution imposes a structure of government that is ill-suited to modern times.
The Constitution can be amended through a process outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Amendments can be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Once an amendment is proposed, it becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 out of 50).
One suggestion is to grant presidents universal "fast track" authority, allowing them to craft policy proposals that Congress would be required to vote up or down on within a specified period, without the possibility of delays or filibusters. Another approach is to make small, low-risk constitutional changes that promise big pay-offs for effective government, such as moving Congress to the periphery of the policymaking process and giving presidents a more central role.
