A constitutional overhaul

Hannah-Kate McFadden, Contributing Writer

When the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, it was a groundbreaking document. The U.S. created a government where a system of checks and balances reined in unruly leaders, wayward legislators and anything seemingly unconstitutional. However, we no longer live in a world where presidents peacefully transfer power or Congress passes the torch to a new generation. The Constitution is in need of serious change. It has begun to enable those in office to retain their power. While revolutionary during its creation, it has become somewhat outdated.

The three branches of government, legislative, judicial and executive, are in need of an overhaul and in order to do so, we would have to let go of this idea that the Constitution, in all of its glory, is a perfect document. And perhaps it was, during the 18th century, but it has since proved incapable of creating a balance of power. Society has changed significantly since the framers ratified the Constitution. If the United States wants to remain a beacon of democracy to the world, then we need to prove we are capable of an effective system of checks and balances.

When the Constitution was written, the United States was not far removed from a bloody war with the British over their independence. For a majority of the framers, delegates of the constitutional convention, there was a real fear of a continuation of a monarchy.

The presidential system of government is an American invention. So the president was given just enough power to govern effectively while still being kept in check from tyranny. However, a lot of the power the president has is dependent on interpretation. Executive orders are not specifically listed in the Constitution as a presidential power. They are derived from Article II, Section 3, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and this gives the president the power to create executive orders. They can be useful for immediate action or implementation of law. However, it has never been clearer in this modern era that executive orders can be easily abused.

While the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional, erratic executive orders create confusion and abuse the scope of the power. Executive orders were designed to be used in emergencies or times of national crisis, such as financial depressions or wars. They were designed to make certain that the Constitution and laws were being properly executed. However, modern day presidents have used them to shape national policy without much resistance from the Supreme Court. Out of the 16,000 executive orders penned into existence, scholars estimate the Supreme Court has struck down only 20 or 30.

In order to keep presidential power in check, executive orders need to be regulated. The renewed Constitution would give the president the power to issue executive orders in times of national emergencies; war, financial crises or extenuating circumstances. The Supreme Court or a panel of federal judges chosen at random from lower courts would review any executive order issued by the president and render a ruling on the constitutionality of said order. The executive orders would only go into effect after the Supreme Court or the panel of federal judges declared it constitutional.

The legislative branch created such a kerfuffle for the framers, who couldn’t decide on a unicameral or bicameral Congress. The House of Representatives is a chamber based on population, and has the power of impeachment. The Senate was supposed to be the more sophisticated “saucer” of Congress. It was designed to cool the passions of the House and be the stabilizing legislative body. But no matter how well–designed Congress was supposed to be, it still enables legislators to retain their office. Those who remain in power for long periods tend to grow accustomed to that level of influence. Congress is not subject to term limits and the Constitution allows for legislators to serve for their entire career. For example, Chuck Grassley is the longest serving senator currently. He has been in the Senate since 1980, and served in the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1980. In total, he has served 51 years in Congress and, at 93, is the oldest sitting senator.

Our nation functions better when citizens of all demographics are represented in the legislative body. Congress is in need of term limits and age limits. Representatives should serve no more than five, two–year terms and senators should serve no more than three, six–year terms. In the House of Representatives, the minimum age to serve is 25 while the Senate is 30. For both chambers of Congress, the age limit should be 75.

The United States Congress is the oldest in the world on average. This raises the questions of mental competence for older members and how understanding the older generation is with younger generations. The legislative branch was designed to be representative of the entire population of the nation, not just one generation.

Alexander Hamilton defined the judicial branch as the “least dangerous branch” of the government as it holds no power over the military or financial decisions made. The judicial branch established the power of judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret laws, bills and executive orders as constitutional. The nine justices decide what laws are considered constitutional. They are given lifetime appointments, and while they can be removed from office, it has never successfully been accomplished. The Constitution stipulates that the justices will “hold their offices during good behavior.” What constitutes “good” behavior is up to the interpretation of the House Judiciary Committee who drafts articles of impeachment.

The Supreme Court is the most powerful court in the nation and arguably the most powerful branch of the federal government. Without clear boundaries and guidelines for impeachment and lifetime appointments, the Supreme Court wields the power to declare laws

unconstitutional and those judgments are based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

While the judicial branch may not control nuclear codes or the economy, they still shape the democracy we live in. The Supreme Court needs to have clear guidelines of what constitutes “good behavior.” The guidelines for removing justices are too open to interpretation and leave the federal judicial branch relatively unchecked. The guidelines for impeachment should be clear and precise, such as bribery or corruption.

As for lifetime appointments, the Supreme Court and any federal judiciary position needs to have term limits implemented. Lifetime appointments provide an avenue to long–term ideological interpretation of laws and the Constitution. A limit of 20 years is a sufficient amount of time to serve on the Supreme Court. It allows for stability without burdening multiple generations with the uncertainty of the Supreme Court.

Our nation is unique and diverse. Our governing bodies and judicial systems should be constructed of and showcase the differences that make up this melting pot. The American experiment can and should only survive if it is representative of our ideals and culture. Lifetime appointments, endless terms and unchecked executive orders give those in power the ability to continue making decisions that are not in line with what the American people desire.

The Constitution has begun enabling individuals in higher offices of public service to retain influence over the government for extended periods. It is time for those in power to remember who they are serving: the people.