What is the changes brought about in a constitution
Answers
BALANCE THE BUDGET
I would like to see an amendment requiring a balanced “primary” budget, which means that the cost of servicing the national debt would be excluded.
It should contain a provision that Congress must reduce spending proportionately across areas of the federal budget and that tax increases must maintain the present progressivity of the tax code, phased in within ten years of the amendment’s passage.
Without a constitutional mandate, politicians and other citizens simply will not have the will to make the changes necessary to address our looming fiscal crisis.
– Steve Bell, senior director at the Bipartisan Policy Center
NO LIFETIME JOBS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
If I could amend the Constitution, I would add a provision ending lifetime tenure for federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. I would replace it with a long, nonrenewable term of no more than 20 years. Furthermore, I believe the Chief Justice should not hold this position for life, but for a four-year term that would be renewable.
This reform would reduce the intensity of debate on court nominations because the stakes wouldn’t be so high; it would reduce pressure to appoint young judges who will spend the maximum amount of time on the court; it would reduce pressure on federal judges to avoid retirement lest a member of the opposite party appoint their replacement; and it would bring fresh blood and thinking into the judicial system.
A June 7, 2012 CBS News/New York Times poll found 60 percent of people agreeing that lifetime appointments gives judges too much power versus 33 percent who said it is a good thing because it makes judges independent.
– Bruce Bartlett, former deputy assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy; columnist for The Fiscal Times
DON’T CHANGE A THING
Several major conservative thinkers suggested that the Constitution does not need to be changed, but rather to have its principle of limited government guide both Congress and the president.
Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute noted that the Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless searches, “yet the National Security Agency tracks everybody with Congress' tacit if not explicit consent.”
Instead of an amendment, Tom Miller of the American Enterprise Institute said the Constitution needs “a better glossary to define and restrain the many open-ended words and phrases in the Constitution’s actual text that provide wide latitude for judicial reinterpretation and expansion far beyond their original meaning.”
Here is the rationale from Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks:
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t need any additions or changes – they just need to be applied consistently throughout government in order to actually work. The responsibility lies with “We the People” to hold our elected officials accountable to defending those rights at every turn.
A truly constitutionally-limited government would not be almost $17 trillion in debt because there would be no unconstitutional bailouts, health care takeovers or farm subsidies. Energy plants would not be closing their doors, because pollution would be managed through private property rights and not arbitrary regulations.
The IRS would not have the discretionary power required to discriminate against Americans based on their political beliefs, and innocent civilians would be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by Homeland Security and the NSA.
The Federal Reserve would not devalue the dollar, because the Fed wouldn’t exist – there would be no government-induced boom and bust. The president would not issue so many executive orders, because only Congress would have the power to legislate.
NO PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS
The essence of the American Constitution was the creation of a document of non governance. It says what government cannot do – not what it can do. The government cannot regulate speech, association, religion, press, and gun ownership.\
The 22nd Amendment does regulate what the people can do, namely elect a president as often as they like. It was passed by Republicans as soon as they could, not wanting to put up with another FDR. Of course, it backfired as ill-considered things often do, as they could not elect Ike or Reagan to a 3rd term.