A slightly more perfect Constitution

General Zod

Banned
An interesting trivia I recently stunbled upon is that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, besides the various and obvious provisions enshrining almost-mandatory chattel slavery for states and a rigid free trade agenda, it included several provisions which look like genuine good ideas and innovative improvements of the original document according to the first century's experience.

Now, assume that the Founding Fathers were seized by a little foresight and included all of them in the original document.

They were:

Granting Cabinet member a non-voting seat in Congress: "Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department".

Granting the President a line item veto over appropriations legislation: "The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President".

Some measures for fiscal restraint: "Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the United States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish".

And "All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered".

A bill, or any resolution carrying the force of law, could only deal with a single subject, which had to be stated in the title: "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title".

Enshrined the spoils system in the Constitution: "The principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, and all persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the Executive Departments may be removed at any time by the President, or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapacity, inefficiency, misconduct, or neglect of duty; and when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together with the reasons therefore".

Put a check to recess appointments: "The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session; but no person rejected by the Senate shall be reappointed to the same office during their ensuing recess."

Made the process of amendment easier, requiring two-thirds of the states rather than three-fourths.

Better definition of the management of territories: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the United States, including the lands thereof.The United States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the United States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Union."

Definied when recess in the Senate could be filled: "The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session; but no person rejected by the Senate shall be reappointed to the same office during their ensuing recess."

Gave the Congress the power to tax exports:" No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses".

How would the American political process and history be different, with these changes to the Constitution ?
 
The CS Constitution is an improvement upon the US Constitution at least in regards to the problems that were seen at the time down in Montgomery, Alabama. A lot of the points you bring up would be a definite benefit. The Southern states did see that the North, and most likely the Republican Party - as the direct successor to the Whigs - were prone to abusing the authority of Congress as laid out in the Constitution. This is just another debate over strict and loose constructionalist interpretation of the Constitution.

An important point is that if one wanted the Congress to do something other than what was listed in the Constitution one should pass an amendment rather then look for loop holes.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Confederate Constitution also mandated single six-year term for the President, which I think would be an improvement over our current system.
 
The CS Constitution is an improvement upon the US Constitution at least in regards to the problems that were seen at the time down in Montgomery, Alabama. A lot of the points you bring up would be a definite benefit. The Southern states did see that the North, and most likely the Republican Party - as the direct successor to the Whigs - were prone to abusing the authority of Congress as laid out in the Constitution. This is just another debate over strict and loose constructionalist interpretation of the Constitution.

An important point is that if one wanted the Congress to do something other than what was listed in the Constitution one should pass an amendment rather then look for loop holes.

Both sides happily shat on the other through the Federal law process.
 

General Zod

Banned
The Confederate Constitution also mandated single six-year term for the President, which I think would be an improvement over our current system.

Why do you deem a single six-year term be better than two four-year terms ? Because it would reduce the incentive to avoid necessary but unpopular policy choice in order to get re-elected ? Or because do you deem eight-years to same person are too much ? Or because in the last two years out of eight a President is typically a largely ineffectual lame duck anyway ? Please clarify your point.

A single six-year term would have caused some interesting time shifts in the terms of various Adminstrations. Differently from all the other clausles I quoted, I am dubious such a strict presidential term-limit would have been acceptable to the Founding Fathers. There would have been worry to make the Executive too weak (due to the disastrous precedent of the Articles of Confederation) and the contrary influence of the monarchical example. However, I concede that it was a possible outcome as well.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Differently from all the other clausles I quoted, I am dubious such a strict presidential term-limit would have been acceptable to the Founding Fathers.
No offense, but it often seems silly to me when people speak of the "Founding Fathers" as if they spoke with one voice. Fact is, the Founding Fathers could not agree with each other on anything, so saying that such-and-such is what the Founding Fathers wanted or didn't want simply does not make any sense. Are you talking about Jefferson, or Adams, or Hamilton, or Washington, or Madison, or someone else?
 
Why do you deem a single six-year term be better than two four-year terms ? Because it would reduce the incentive to avoid necessary but unpopular policy choice in order to get re-elected ? Or because do you deem eight-years to same person are too much ? Or because in the last two years out of eight a President is typically a largely ineffectual lame duck anyway ? Please clarify your point.

I have heard arguments that if one removed the two years spent by a president running for reelection one would arrive at six years. The current election campaign certainly has seemed to have gone on forever and the National Conventions haven't occured yet. So six years where the President only has to worry about running the country and not running for reelection.

I wonder if the single six year term would remove the concept of a 'lame duck' presidency.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I have heard arguments that if one removed the two years spent by a president running for reelection one would arrive at six years. The current election campaign certainly has seemed to have gone on forever and the National Conventions haven't occured yet. So six years where the President only has to worry about running the country and not running for reelection.

I wonder if the single six year term would remove the concept of a 'lame duck' presidency.


No. It would just make him a Lame Duck as soon as the next congress was elected.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
No. It would just make him a Lame Duck as soon as the next congress was elected.

Sort of. But American political attitudes would have evolved around the idea of a President serving a single six-year term, rather than around the idea of the president possibily staying around for another term. Therefore, the whole idea of lame duck would be different.And even lame ducks can veto bills.
 
No. It would just make him a Lame Duck as soon as the next congress was elected.

But, there is not anything particularly wrong with being a "lame duck" if the president is the right sort of duck. To some extent the US president is intended to fullfil the symbolic role of head of state - like a monarch - as much or more than head of government. A President who does not have to be reelected has the freedom to use his bully pulpit to push and negotiate for policies which might be unpopular in the short term. A really effective president might have more power in the long term than one who has to be relected. On the other hand, under a weak president, this might weaken the position of the presidency and gradually devolve more power to the Speaker of the House as de facto leader of government The Vice President (also elected for a 6-year term I assume) might assume a more visible and influential role as President of the Senate. This does make for some interesting speculation on how the constitution and its amendments might develop if a single-term president was enshrined from the beginning.
 
Top