The US Constitution was a good document to start with. The first ten amendments, which we call the Bill of Rights, took it from "good" to "excellent." Although the Constitution as a whole, including all amendments, forms the legal basis for all law in the US, the Bill of Rights in particular deserves and receives a vast amount of ongoing attention. After all, how many people debate Article II, Section 3, or Article III, Section 1, compared to the First Amendment or the Second Amendment? Amendments after the Bill of Rights are important too, for they show that the Constitution is a living document, and most of them (with the noteworthy exception of the short-lived 18th Amendment) provide for important changes to the basis of our laws, such as abolition of slavery, giving women the right to vote, and so forth.
Despite the obvious value in existing amendments, and the ability to make further amendments, I am generally opposed to efforts to further amend the Constitution. I realize that someday another amendment may eventually be needed, but I'll admit to something of a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of "tinkering" with this foundation of our society. As we should have learned from Prohibition, the Constitution should not be bent willy-nilly according to the whims of the day. This is why I would fundamentally oppose any amendment related to marriage, unless it was to completely eliminate the government's role in marriage. Anyway, while the Constitution is a living document, it is also a long-term document with far-reaching effects.
With that said, however, I have found myself favoring an amendment that, to my knowledge, has not yet been discussed in our nation. It is an amendment I call the Spouse Term Reduction Amendment. In a nutshell, that amendment would make ineligible for Presidency any person whose spouse (or "life partner") was President for the maximum terms in office. More accurately, it would decrease the number of terms of presidency a person could hold for each term previously completed by the person's spouse. I will admit, this was originally inspired by a "whim of the day" because the idea of Hillary Clinton holding the nation's highest office literally scares me. But it's not limited to dealing with this temporary concern, and I think it's a reasonable adjustment to the Constitution, as I will explain in a moment.
I do not have anything against the idea of a woman becoming US President. In fact, I think the long chain of white males who have held that office is unusual and an uncomfortable anachronism that harks back to less enlightened times. Provided the person is fully qualified for the job based on attributes they choose (including both their positions on the issues of the day as well as attributes such as integrity, loyalty, fairness, and so forth), and is able to properly represent the US on the global stage, I don't care about personal attributes that they were born with, nor should anybody else. Whether a person is male or female, and what color a person's skin may be, or how tall they are, or other non-chosen attributes, should play no part in whether they are elected as President of the United States.
So, do not think that my suggestion to amend the Constitution is about blocking women from becoming our leader and Commander in Chief. Nor should you think it is just about Hillary Clinton, even if she was the inspiration for the idea. (You may not be ready to put an anti-Hillary bumper sticker on your car, but you should certainly be looking at what damage could be done to the United States if she were to be elected, especially if she enjoyed a Congress controlled by Democrats.)
To examine my logic for this proposed amendment, it is necessary to compare our technologically advanced world with the world as it was when the Constitution was first penned. In the early days of this nation, it was not possible to send a message around the world in a matter of seconds. Few today would have the patience to write a letter on paper (using the relatively primitive writing instruments of the day, since there were no ballpoint pens nor even decent fountain pens) and wait for it to be transported via horse, sailing ship, etc. It was not possible to sit at home and write something that could be read by thousands, even millions of people in less than a day. Nor was it possible, when the Constitution was first drafted, to hear a person's voice unless that person was present, or to see any more accurate representation of a person than a painting, which (of course) did not move. Thus, the foundation of our law and our society was written by people who would never know email, a blog, a podcast, or television.
Without access to, or even dreams of, mass communication on a global scale at near-instantaneous speeds, those who set forth the Constitution could not possibly know the social, economic, and political influences of the spouse of the president. Even as recently as the last century, especially the years before World War II, it is unlikely that anyone could have envisioned how extensively that influence could grow before the century drew to a close. It is likely, almost certain, that wives of married presidents in the past have held varying degrees of influence over the nation. Anybody who has been married knows that a spouse will have some influence on decisions, and the degree of influence depends on the relationship (as well as external factors such as socially-accepted norms of the day).
As with any power, the influence held by the spouse of the president can be a good or bad thing. But the important facet to understand is that presidents are elected for themselves. We don't elect married couples, and we don't elect spouses directly. While it is true that a candidate's spouse may become part of the campaign picture (often in a negative way), by law we do not cast ballots for spouses, only for the actual office holder. Only the office holder is sworn into their position, and only the office holder can be impeached. We cannot impeach a spouse, so if the influence they hold is used to hurt our nation, there is little we can do about it as long as they aren't actively breaking the law. This isn't such a problem when the spouse has little or no direct influence over people, when the spouse can't communicate directly with the entire nation (and world) instantaneously. In other words, this influence, even if used for ill, would not be a problem when the Constitution was first written.
My, how times have changed! Look at the influence that has been leveraged by Hillary Clinton. She showed little or no restraint in terms of pushing her political agenda during the presidential terms of her husband, and it is unlikely (to put it kindly) that her influence then did not improve her chances of being elected to the Senate where she could continue pushing her political agenda. While by law she has not been President, in actual effect (i.e., impact on the nation) she has been far closer to it than other president's wives. Allowing her to become President in title will allow her to be, in actual effect, President for more than the lawful number of terms of presidency.
As bad as Hillary is (and could become), it is conceivable that others in the future might be worse. It is also conceivable that the influence of a president's spouse could become even broader and deeper than it has already become. That is why, for the long-term health of the nation, I suggest this amendment to the Constitution. It is a rational and necessary adaptation to the effects of modern technology on our government. Of course, it is not possible to amend the Constitution in time to prevent Hillary from being elected (which makes support of other candidates so incredibly vital), but any delays in moving forward with this necessary adaptation will almost certainly hurt our nation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment