Ashcroft and constitutional amendments

[Sanford Levinson]

I think that 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are quite bad indeed, but these are,
obviously, pure  political judgments (as is presumably true by definition
when it comes to debating constitutional amendments).  I would assume that
people with different political views would like them, and our debate would
be based on the attractiveness of the viewpoints themselves rather than on
the detached (un)wisdom of amending the constitution per se.  Five and six,
incidentally, I find more ambigalent about.  I'm certainly in favor of
amending the constitution to get rid of life tenure for members of the
Supreme Court; I'm not convinced that limiting the terms of members of
congress is a terrible idea.  (You may recall that I have praised Thomas's
opinion in Thornton, save for its wholly unnecessary invocation of the
Kentucky and Virginia ontology.)  At the very least, it might be healthy to
have a cogent national debate on the issue, which would presumably take
place if such an amendment were proposed by Congress.  And, given that I
believe that Article V promotes a kind of sclerosis, I am not in principle
opposed to facilitating the role of state legislatures in proposing
amendments, especially as it's no longer true that state governments are
synonymous with racist bigots or even incompetents.


>The Post identifies six: overturn Roe v. Wade; permit prayer in public
>schools; require a supermajority in Congress to raise any tax; permit
>Congress to outlaw desecration of the American flag; impose term limits on
>members of Congress; and an amendment to facilitate the amendment of the
>Constitution on the initiative of state legislatures. The seventh appears
>to be a balanced budget amendment (S.J.Res. 7 in the 106th Cong.),
>requiring a 3/5 majority to approve outlays in excess of receipts exclusive
>of borrowings. He may have supported an earlier version, but isn't listed
>as a co-sponsor of the Victims Rights Amendment proposed in the 106th Cong.