From the Texas Tribune: With Trump on their side, Abbott and Cruz hopeful for term limits on Congress

Terms limits have been off the table for while, but there's an effort to bring them back.

- Click here for the article.

As President Donald Trump casts his election victory as a rebuke against career politicians, the idea of imposing term limits on Congress has drawn renewed attention. Two Texas Republican leaders are pushing different approaches on how to get there.

Last month, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, proposed a constitutional amendment with U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., that would limit members of Congress to serving a maximum of three terms in the House and two in the Senate.

“In one word, [the amendment] is excellent,” said Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, an organization that advocates for limiting the time elected officials serve at all levels of government. “It’s simple, straightforward, and it’s exactly the type of term limits amendment that polls show Americans are clamoring for.”

There is no right to vote guaranteed in the US Constitution. Should there be?

Its an odd point to make because we keep referring to a right to vote, but nowhere in the Constitution is such a right spelled out. Its a point we will make in both 2305 and 2306. The US document allows states to determine who gets to vote and a handful of amendment state which criteria can no longer be used to exclude people, but otherwise the states can make the decision:

Here's further elaboration on that point:

Unlike citizens in every other advanced democracy—and many other developing ones—Americans don’t have a right to vote. Popular perception notwithstanding, the Constitution provides no explicit guarantee of voting rights. Instead, it outlines a few broad parameters. Article 1, Section 2, stipulates that the House of Representatives “shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” while Article 1, Section 4, reserves the conduct of elections to the states. The Constitution does, however, detail the ways in which groups of people cannot be denied the vote. The 15th Amendment says you can’t prevent African American men from voting. The 19th Amendment says you can’t keep women from voting. Nor can you keep citizens of Washington, D.C., (23rd Amendment) or 18-year-olds (26th Amendment) from exercising the franchise. If you can vote for the most “numerous” branch of your state legislature, then you can also vote for U.S. Senate (17th Amendment).

These amendments were passed in different circumstances, but they share one quality—they’re statements of negative liberty, establishing whom the government can’t restrict when it comes to voting. Beyond these guidelines, states have wide leeway in how they construct voting systems.

There is no proactive, positive language that enforces the ability of citizens to vote. The author woudl like to see some added - an affirmative constitutional right -  added to the US Constitution.

Proponents say that an affirmative constitutional right would, at the very least, force state lawmakers and election administrators to think twice about measures and election procedures that harm voters. “A constitutional amendment for the right to vote is needed to make it explicit,” says Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil-rights organization. “Making it explicit will send a signal to state legislatures and courts that any barriers to our democracy must be carefully devised so that they don’t disenfranchise people.” The Supreme Court, she notes, has been happy to defer to states’ laws on voting, even if the result is to keep some people from exercising the franchise. In 2008, the Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law, declaring that it wasn’t unconstitutional to require photo identification at the polls because the state had a “valid interest” in deterring fraud. That ruling was made despite Indiana’s inability to produce a single example of in-person voter fraud.

A right-to-vote amendment would raise the standard of constitutional review for voter-identification laws and other measures that deplete the pool of voters. Currently states have to show only a “compelling interest” for their laws to pass muster. An affirmative right to vote would compel courts to apply “strict scrutiny,” the standard used to review laws that operate on the basis of race and other characteristics. The burden would then be on a state like Indiana to prove voter fraud and to show that IDs or other requirements are needed to prevent further problems

A conservative commentator considers the implications of such an amendment. It woudl lead to additional national power over the states

Such an amendment would likely result in a substantial expansion of the Justice Department. I'd guess it would look something like the Voting Rights Act, with the feds identifying problematic states and counties and paying them special attention. So...

What limiting principles would there be for such oversight? Is having to wait in line a violation of the right to vote? Are voter-ID laws in violation of such an amendment? Are states with shorter intervals for voter registration in violation? Are felons exempted from this right? If so, is there anything that might strip said right? Bouie brings up several of these as reasons for such a right, but I'm uncertain to what extent he feels we should empower federal authorities to act.

Thanks to the Dish for flagging the story.

Proposals to amend the US Constitution

Slate has a series of articles by constitutional scholars with their suggestions for constitutional amendments. These might be worth a class discussion.

Some proposals:

1 - A Popular Sovereignty Initiative. This proposes a method where the Constitution can be amended without the approval of the states. As it stands, 13 states (that can represent as little as 5% of the population) can deny the passage of an amendment that might supported by the rest of the nation. Here's the proposal:

The president, after gaining election to a second term in office, may propose amendments that, if approved by the House and Senate, shall be placed on the ballot of the several states for consideration at the next two presidential elections. If sixty percent of the nation’s voters approve the amendment at both elections, it shall become a part of this Constitution.

2 - Informational Privacy. The ability of the public and private sector to obtain personal information has expanded greatly in the digital age, and this information can be processed, analyzed and shared very quickly. The Constitution does not adequately address this aspect of privacy, so the author proposes the following amendment:

“The people’s right to privacy in their data and communications shall not be abridged.”

The courts would then be in a position to determine what this means when cases are brought to it.

3 - Plea bargains and excessive punishment. The first is aimed at the practice of prosecutors to coerce defendants to accept plea bargains by charging them with crimes with stiff sentences in order to frighten them into giving up their right to a jury trial. Lesser sentences for plea bargains violate the right to a jury trial (which only happen in 5% of cases). This can be corrected with the following text:

Prosecutors may not seek higher penalties, nor may judges impose higher penalties, when defendants exercise their right to a jury trial.

The second is based on the argument that punishments in the US generally do not fit the crime. Politicians are awarded by claiming to be tough on crime and encouraging longer sentences for minor crimes. Here's the proposed text:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor excessive terms of incarceration, nor any other excessive form of criminal punishment, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

Mandatory punishments are prohibited. Courts must have discretion to alter punishments based on individual circumstances.

4 - Move the President's Inauguration closer to election day. Once it took a while for the Electoral College to meet and make their votes. That was a long time ago, and the two months between election day and inauguration only produce stalemate. The proposed language:

The president shall be chosen in an election open to all qualified voters within the United States. Should no candidate receive an absolute majority of those casting ballots, a run-off will be held between the top two candidates within two weeks of the initial ballot. He or she shall take office two weeks after Congress in joint session declares that a candidate has achieved majority approval. The new president, upon taking office, shall nominate someone to serve as vice president of the United States, who shall take office upon being confirmed by majority vote of both Houses of Congress, meeting in joint session.

5 - Elect the Attorney General. The authors makes a good point about the design of the presidency in the Constitution. It was vague because the framers had little idea about how to design such a novel office. The increase in the presidency's power has been an inevitable consequence. The Attorney General has facilitated this increase because the office is appointed by the president. If it was independently appointed - as it is in Texas - this would not occur. Here's the lengthy proposal:

The legal, law enforcement and investigative functions of the Department of Justice and other legal duties as shall be specified by law shall be vested in one attorney general, who shall be elected by vote of the people for a term of four years during those years in which members of Congress shall be elected but no presidential election shall be conducted.

The attorney general shall represent the United States and shall conduct the law-enforcement and investigative functions of the department, and all other duties as shall be assigned by law, in conformity with this Constitution, laws made pursuant to it and treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States. In conducting his duties, the Attorney General shall at all times safeguard the public interest.

The attorney general shall give the president legal advice, in writing, at the president’s request and at other appropriate times and shall inform the president of the actions taken by the Justice Department, and shall attend sessions of the Cabinet; however, the president may not require the resignation of the attorney general.

The attorney general shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the legal and law-enforcement policy and actions of the United States, and shall furnish to Congress information requested concerning the same, excepting only such information as may compromise ongoing legal investigations or reveal information properly classified.

Selling A Balanced Budget Amendment

From the NYT:

House Republicans, feeling they have scored significant fiscal victories, are moving on to an even bigger challenge: persuading voters, state legislatures and Democrats to alter the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment.

In a meeting with his conference Monday, Speaker John A. Boehner told members that the best thing they could do during the August recess was to sell their constituents on the idea that the amendment — which essentially stipulates that government cannot spend more than it takes in — is necessary and good.

The President Has no Constitutional Role to Play in the Amendment Process

I'm almost finished grading the 2302 written assignment on Wilson and I noticed many talked about his support for the 17th Amendment, but while this may have been a personal position, he could not use his office to promote the amendment.
- Here's background from the National Archives.

Proposed Constitutional Amendmentto Limit Presidential Pardons

From the American Constitution Society:

A constitutional amendment limiting presidential pardon power is being contemplated by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), TPM Muckraker reports. The congressman said during a public forum that he would introduce an amendment in the coming months to restrict the “president’s near absolute pardon power,” according to TPM.

Nadler has already, in a resolution, called on President George W. Bush to refrain from using his power to issue so-called “blanket pardons” of government officials involved in carrying out administration counterterrorism policies, especially those involved in torture of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq and those involved in implementing the domestic spying program.

Anti Dynastic Amendment

Grover Norquist proposes an amendment limiting family succession in elected office.

Is this really necessary? And is he just trying to keep Hillary out of the White House?