Let's Change That 

Many would argue today that the constitution is in trouble. I've been thinking a lot about this since reading Constitutional Chaos (go figure). Depending on who you talk to, people have different views of the constitution. Some view it as a writ from on high, on par with the ten commandments. Some view it as just a set of plain old laws... a living document that we can change at will. The reality of it is that the constitution is somewhere in between. It wasn't written in stone (it was written on parchment), but it's also not just any old set of laws that we can change on a whim.

On of the latest controversies in Congress right now (and there are so many) is the threat by Senate Republicans to use the so called "nuclear option". They want to change the Senate procedures to not allow a filibuster (which requires 60 votes to override) when voting for judicial nominations. I'm not going to pretend like Senate Republicans are virtuous here while the Democrats are evil. When Clinton was in office, Republicans gave his nominees a lot of flack, probably more than was warranted in a lot of cases. Now the Democrats are trying to use the filibuster to exact some sort of revenge. Democrats are now claiming that there is a good reason (beyond simple politics for doing this). After all they say, this person is getting a lifetime appointment. Isn't a super majority warranted in these cases where the stakes are so high?

It's a very interesting argument... and actually one I might consider to be a good idea. Unfortunately it's not what is required in the Constitution. Judicial nominees only require a simple majority to pass. Senator Boxer disagrees with that, and thinks more is required. How fortunate for you then Senator that the framers gave you the ability to change how things work. You can amend the Constitution. Too hard you say? It's been done 28 times in our more than 200 year history, so it can't be that difficult.

The Constitution is not set in stone, but it's also not something you can just change on a whim, and that's the way it was designed. In the early 90's, Senate Republicans passed a law which granted the president (then Clinton) a line item veto. It is probably the only time a party in control of Congress has expressly granted a sitting president of the other party that kind of power. The law came before the Supreme Court and was struck down. The reason? The veto power is granted to the president in the Constitution. If you want to change that power, then you must amend the Constitution. Simply passing a law is not sufficient.

The rights and powers guaranteed in that document are the very basis of our government. That is the reason why we require a more lengthy and difficult process to change them. They are not something that we ought to change on a whim, nor should they change every time someone new is in power. Remember that every time a law is passed by someone which takes away yet another one of your free speech rights, or your ability to practice your religion, or any of the other rights guaranteed to you in that document. If those restrictions are so important, and everyone can agree to them, shouldn't it be easy to modify the constitution to reflect it? Or maybe they realize that if they tried, people would see what was trying to be done behind their back and protest. Changing the Constitution is difficult for a reason, let's not allow people to make it easy.