Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tarb's avatar

This is an extremely minor point, but I think there is one thing that should be added to the amendment you propose. It should say "after being ratified, this amendment will not take effect until the next President assumes office" or something to that effect.

The reason for this is that while the amendment itself (theoretically, at least) benefits neither party in general, it would be of considerable detriment for several years to the party of the current President. So they would have considerably less interest in approving an amendment if they know it would be to their disadvantage, much like how it's difficult to weaken the power of the President because you'd need a 2/3 of each house and the party of the current President wouldn't be interested in weakening the President when he's their guy, and of course an amendment has even stricter requirements than that. You need both parties to get on board with it, and the party that has the President would have little interest in doing so because they'd be the ones to take the hit for the next few years; it'd be sort of like a party wanting to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate while they're in the minority!

Changing it so that it only takes effect with the NEXT President means that no party will become disadvantaged during the current term, removing a potential obstacle to the President's party in voting for the amendment. Whatever party wins the presidency the next term will be disadvantaged, but since no one would know for sure who that would be, no one would actually know it would be to their disadvantage to approve it.

Expand full comment
Epikouros's avatar

This might be a another proposed amendment article from you in the future, but I was curious what you would think of a line-item veto for appropriations. With and without gelding the presidential veto. Also be interesting to see what would be the inter-branch dynamics of having a line-item veto as well as the House having a strong power of the purse as you also propose. More of a move to a quasi-parliamentary structure?

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts