Recently a friend sent a list of ideas to reform Congress. I told his that most of the ideas would not work and pointed out that many of the ideas were based on myths about Congress—such as the old claim that Congress does not pay into Social Security. This was changed in the 80’s. My friend’s response was to ask for my ideas. I don’t know why in this country we have adopted the ludicrous idea that one cannot point out problems of an action without also laying out a better plan. We saw this in the healthcare debates when the Democrats belittled Republican opposition with the accusation that they had not given a better plan. One does not have to have a better plan to be able to recognize a bad plan. Despite this, I put together my usual list of appropriate fixes. You will not that none of them are the usual fluff floating around conservative circles.

Since only Constitutional Amendments cannot be overturned let’s start there.

First, repeal the XVII Amendment. In the Constitution, the Senate represented the state governments so Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This was changed to popular election by XVII. We have such a bloated federal government because no one speaks for the states in Congress. With this small change there will never be another unfunded mandate, the X Amendment will be uplifted, and state governments will be empowered to stand up to the federal juggernaut.

Second, repeal the XVI Amendment. This aberration allowed the federal government to tax the people directly without apportionment by census figures. This would abolish the income tax. If you want to limit a government you must keep a tight grip on its ability to raise funds.

Third, further define the treaty making process. The Constitution empowers the President and the Senate to ratify treaties. This is fine with the repeal of XVII since the Senate would once again represent the state governments. The problem is that all bills for appropriation of money are constitutionally required to start in the House. What happens if a treaty is signed that requires the raising of an amount of money? Does the house have to raise the money? If so this is in effect an appropriation started by the Executive branch and the Senate sunning roughshod over the people’s representatives. There needs to be more definition. It must be stated that even if the President and Senate approve a treaty, the House still has the right to refuse to pay for it, by withholding the appropriations. This would handicap much of the feared results of Kyoto, UN mandates, etc. This does not violate the president’s power of foreign diplomacy, but it would limit his ability to enact harmful legislation under the guise of diplomacy, and protect the sovereignty of the American people.

Fourth, the war powers of the president need to be amended. Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief but the power to send troops outside the US borders to engage any force or nation must be limited to those engagements where Congress has passed a declaration of war. In the case of Afghanistan this would not have been a problem because one could have been passed within hours of 911. However, this would have prevented many problems with Korea and Vietnam because the war could not simply be handed off to blame the president because Congress’ own votes would have been a matter of record. The American soldier should never be sent into harm’s way without the recorded agreement of their representatives. Voting to fund is not enough; it must be a declaration of war.

Fifth, there must be a Constitutional definition of Executive orders. As it is right now the president can make what is in effect law through these monarchical pronouncements, without Constitutional limitation. These orders are necessary for the operation of the executive branch to carry out its duties, but for now there is nothing to limit them. In this way the president is without the limits of checks and balances in executive orders.

Sixth, repeal the XXII Amendment. While others are proposing term limits for Congress, I see presidential term limits as detrimental. Limiting the president to two terms places the executive at a disadvantage in dealing with Congress, because this person’s political career is over. This in effect removes part of the checks and balances over Congress. During a second four year term Congress can force through many things that would never be possible without an emasculated president. Yes, some may point to the danger of ending up with an unbeatable president doing popular but unwise things such as FDR. However the New Deal was long after the passage of the XVI and XVII Amendments. With these repealed FDR would have been powerless.

The founding fathers designed our federal system of government to be a balancing act. Sovereignty was to rest in the people but it would be expressed through two venues, their individual states and the federal government. The framers of our constitution and the bodies that ratified it were very concerned that the federal government not be able to ride rough-shod over the states. To prevent this they gave the states a say in federal legislation through a Senate of representatives selected by the State Legislatures. (more…)