I generally like our Constitution. Not that it is a perfect document--certainly it is not. But what ain't broke shouldn't be fixed, and our Constitution has provided America with one of the more stable governmental systems for a couple hundred years. I'm also generally skeptical of "opening the can of worms" that is Constitutional amendments. Once the Constitution is opened up for inspection, I'm wary that other parts of this marvelous document will be futzed with. No good can come of that.
However, once in a long while, a set of circumstances arises that makes a Constitutional amendment the 'right thing to do'. Typically, these fall in the "functioning of government" camp. For example, Birch Bayh's constitutional amendment for Presidential succession wasn't something you could really oppose on ideological grounds; rather it set forth the necessary mechanisms for a governmental transition in this modern era.
However, Russ Feingold is going to propose a constitutional amendment I support... right below the fold.
Senator Feingold (who, by the way, is probably the best elected official we have in America) is about to propose a Senatorial Appointment Amendment.
Senator Feingold says, "
“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people
The amendment will be simple. If there's a vacancy, there's a vote. No more bribing electing officials, no more public appeals to the kingmaker. Senator Feingold is proposing a people-empowering amendment that will allow direct democracy for these truly important elected officials.
Remember, under the Constitution as drafted, Senate seats did not come by direct election--they were seen as a "House of Lords" type body that should be elected by elected representatives. Early in the 20th century, direct elections for the Senate became law, though we take now them for granted. In a loophole, however, direct elections only apply to full 6 year terms. Anything less than a 6 year term, and its up to the states to determine their replacement process.
Which belies the question--if the people are smart enough to elect Senators for 6 year terms, why aren't the people smart enough to elect Senators for less than 6 year terms? The answer is obvious. And it is why we, as a community, ought to support Senator Feingold's amendment.
Update. By the way, I'd be interested to know whether you think President Obama would have made any different cabinet selections if he knew the Senator's replacement would have been selected by election instead of a Republican governor. Maybe they wouldn't have changed one bit--but its certainly interesting to speculate on.