Most amendments that aim to restructure our government are going to be a bit more ‘radical’ than your average, run-of-the-mill amendment. Today, we tackle the Supreme Court:

The Renewing the Supreme Court Amendment

The number of Supreme Court Justices shall be one for every twenty million residents of the States, Districts, and Territories, rounded to the nearest twenty million, that number being calculated after each decennial census. If the number grows, additional Justice(s) shall be appointed for the next annual term of the Court. If the number shrinks, the longest serving Justice(s) must retire at the end of the current annual term of the Court.

The Supreme Court Justices shall be chosen from the ranks of active and Senior Federal Appellate Judges who have served at least eight years as a Federal Appellate Judge and have not already held a position as a Supreme Court Justice, and shall be selected by a series of votes by the active and Senior Appellate Judges until a nominee emerges. The President shall be able to veto the selection of a nominee if said nominee receives less than 2/3 of the votes of the Appellate judges.

The Supreme Court Justices shall be ruled by and abide by the same Code of Ethics, established by the Judicial Conference and/or legislative Acts, as all other Federal judges. Reported violations of the Code of Ethics by any Supreme Court Justice shall be handled by the Judicial Conference. If the reported Justice is part of the Judicial Conference, they shall be excluded from any and all investigations, hearings, deliberations, and findings on the matter. Congress retains the ability to impeach and remove Judges and Justices.

The Chief Supreme Court Justice, from the beginning of each session until the beginning of the next session, shall be the longest serving Supreme Court Justice at the beginning of the session.

Originally, there were 6 Supreme Court Justices (in 1790), and has been as high as 10 (during the Civil War), then settled at 9 (in 1869). Meanwhile, the population of the United States has gone from 3.9 million people in 1790, to 38.5 million in 1870, to 331 million in 2020. The Federal District courts and the Appellate Courts have grown in number and size, and the Supreme Court should be adjusted reasonably to handle the much heavier case load. At one Justice per 20 million residents (rounded up, in this case), that would equate to 17 Justices as of 2020.

More Justices would support better handling of the heavier case load, and would “average out” the “philosophical differences” between the Justices, avoiding wild swings to the Left or the Right. Drawing the Justices solely from the Appellate ranks with at least 8 years experience in Appellate work would guarantee that the the Supreme Court would be ‘stocked’ with mostly very well-qualified people. Further, having them selected by the “Appellate Court” (currently 179 judges, plus some number of Senior judges), would tend to remove the politicization of the Supreme Court that happens with Presidential nominations. Allowing the President some veto power acts as a counter-balance to a runaway Appellate.

As history has shown us, being a Supreme Court Justice does not inherently mean that it guarantees moral and ethical behavior. The unenforced ‘suggestion’ of a code of ethics that was adopted in 2023 is a sham, a toothless mouse trying to gum lions into submission. Just because they’re called ‘Supreme’ does not make them “supreme beings.” They are people. They may be well educated, they may be experienced (or not…), but that doesn’t make them infallible. They often hold the future (or, at least, the near future) of our country in their hands, and those hands should certainly be slapped when they fail our country.

The Chief Supreme Court Justice has a stronger role (somewhat) than the other Justices, yet is chosen and appointed (for life) exactly the same as all the other Justices, by whatever President that happens to be in office when the current Chief dies or retires. That seems, somehow, less than appropriate. By choosing the Justice who has been on the Supreme Court bench the longest, at least the period of “greater sway” is reduced for any given Chief Justice, and greater experience is ensured. How long a Justice should serve, is the subject for a later discussion…

-Everett

This one is pretty much a no-brainer for most folks:

The National Popular Vote for President Amendment

Presidential Electors and the Electoral College is abolished, and the candidates for President and Vice-President with the greatest national vote total in the General Election shall be elected.

Originally, the Electors system was set up to achieve two things: to avoid election by the general population because the general population was generally uneducated nimb-bobs (or so thought the educated, upper-class businessmen and/or slave-owning nimb-bobs who designed and wrote the Constitution), and to deal with the logistics of operating elections over great distances with no means of communication faster than a horse.

Education is now provided and available to most citizens. While many citizens are still nimb-bobs, many of our representatives are, too, so this should no longer be a valid argument for lessened levels of democracy in our government, merely an argument for wider, cheaper, and better education. As for speed of communication, we usually know the outcome of every election within hours of the polls closing, if not before. Speed, too, is no longer an argument for lessened democracy.

Either we believe that most people can be educated and trained to be responsible citizens, capable of making reasonably wise and balanced choices, or we should give up on the dream of democracy and settle for living under kings, dictatorships, and the rule of those able to grab the most reins of power.

The current Electors system favors Presidential candidates who pour all their attention and favor into a handful of swing states, ignoring all the others. In a National Popular Vote election, those candidates would need to pay attention to ALL the States and Territories, because EVERY VOTE WOULD COUNT. Now, in too many states, it truly does NOT matter who you vote for in Presidential elections, as most states so heavily lean one way or the other that the outcome is pretty much pre-ordained. Without Electors, even though the candidate for one party almost always wins the “winner take all” Electors in a state, there’s still a huge chunk of voters that vote for the another party’s candidate, and a sizeable collection of “swing voters” who can be swayed. In a National Popular Vote election, those “losing voters” would still get counted and added together with numbers from other states.

In a true democracy, every vote counts equally.

-Everett

I’ve grouped my proposed Amendments into three broad groups:

Restructuring Government
Power, Immunity, and Benefits – Limits and Guarantees
Transparency

and I’ll tackle them in that order. Any major restructuring of the government is a HUGE ask, but it’s certainly worth considering. To accomplish it (and many of the others), I think, will require the passage of this first one:

The National Initiative Petitions and Referendum Amendment:

When at least 1/2 of the states, either via legislative act or referendum or state initiative petition, request the same Amendment, or if a proposed Amendment is referred to the people by both houses of Congress via simple majority votes, that proposed constitutional Amendment shall be placed on ballots in all states during the next Presidential general election which occurs no sooner than six months thereafter, and shall pass and become part of the Constitution if at least 3/4 of the national popular vote is in favor.

When at least 1/4 of the states, either via legislative act or referendum or state initiative petition, request the same Bill, or if a proposed Bill is referred to the people by both house of Congress via simple majority votes, that proposed Bill shall be placed on ballots in all states during the next Congressional general election which occurs no sooner than six months thereafter, and shall pass if greater than 50% of the national popular vote is in favor. If the bill passes by less than 2/3rds of the vote, the President may veto the bill, in which case the bill shall be voted on again in the next general Congressional election, and if passed by 2/3rds, it will become law.

Oregon, my lifetime home state, has had initiative petitions and referendums since 1902, and while not all of the amendments and bills passed in this way have turned out to be wise and/or work well, the process has allowed for changes that would have been otherwise impossible due to recalcitrant lawmakers who almost always have their eye on re-election first and foremost, which often makes them reluctant to attempt anything too out of the norm, too daring. But the only way to improve society is to do things “outside the norm.” The ‘norm’ usually means “the way things are right now.”

I think anyone who pays much attention to politics and society would have little trouble coming up with situations where a significant majority of the U.S. population is in favor of A POLICY, but the elected politicians won’t enact A POLICY because they’re either worried about re-election in their specific district/state, or they’re taking money from lobbyists and special interests who are opposed to A POLICY. Banning assault weapons? A woman’s right to choose? Climate change? I could go on quite a while, but there’d be little point, because you (for any given one of you) probably wouldn’t agree with my entire list, and any given list is not the point. The point is that the closer the laws become to what the majority of the people want, the better the whole process will work, because we’ll be closer to a true democracy, and people will be more involved in the process.

Too many people don’t vote because they think, “Why should I? My vote doesn’t matter.” The reason they feel that way is they’re electing someone who will then go off to government and do whatever they want to do with little regard to what they PROMISED they would do. When people get to vote directly for specific laws, it gives more people a reason to vote, a feeling that they are having a direct effect on the laws and structure of society. It also encourages greater debate on specific issues

While “big money” frequently tips, toward their preferred outcome, initiative petitions and referendums, that’s not a good argument against initiative petitions and referendums, as big money is already tipping the government by pressuring/bribing our elected representatives. In fact, initiative petitions, on a national scale, could give us the opportunity to get “big money” OUT of our democracy.

-Everett

The Constitution of the United States of America was great and miraculous at the time of its creation, and has been updated a few times to improve and strengthen it. Its great strength was the compromises made to bring all the States together into a unified whole. Of course, that was also its great weakness.

The periods of U.S. history are generally bookended by Constitutional crises, periods where events and social pressures run smack into the grout between the Constitution’s bricks, and the Constitution says, “Ouch.” The most painful of these frequently result in new Amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately (and, perhaps, fortunately), a great deal of pain usually is required. The people of the United States don’t move easily, but when the pain reaches a critical threshold, they can spin on a dime, and then you’d best not be standing in the way.

The last five amendments have been added during my life time, which seems close to par for the course, at least for a reasonably lengthy life. But, in my all-too-rapidly lengthening life, it’s become apparent to me that the Constitution is badly in need of some new guard rails. Too much of the Constitution has depended upon the good will and the social standards of the people elected and appointed to offices, and, as recent events have shown, that’s some weak grout.

Over the past decade or more, being of a philosophical bent, my mind has occasionally wandered (only occasionally…), thinking about how things could be improved. I’m not alone in that behavior, and better minds than mine have pondered similar subjects. But sometimes the only way to free up some space in an increasingly cluttered attic is to toss out some of the boxes.

So, over the coming weeks, I plan to write about Amendments that I think would improve the state and behavior of our constitutional government. I’m currently at 18 of them, and won’t be surprised if a few more pop into being before I write about all of them. Some will be better ideas than others. Some will be well worded, while others will be more like rambling thoughts. My goal is not so much to write them as “final drafts,” but rather more like “first drafts.” The point is, besides freeing some of my clutter, to encourage other to think about changes, too. We’re long overdue.

-Everett