In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Samual Kercheval, a prominent Virginia lawyer and author. In his letter, Jefferson spoke rather eloquently about the U.S. Consitution becoming an antiquated, irrelevant document. He says, “Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, & deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched…” Which is to say, if we look at a document written by fallible men as the “word of God”, then we are doing ourselves a disservice as a society. The purpose of the Constitution itself cannot be neglected because of an overwhelming reverence for it. This point of view by one of the document’s architects doesn’t really get enough attention.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
This quote can also be found at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. It is quite an extraordinary statement given that so many revere the Constitution like it’s the Bible, as if written by the hands of gods.
Even Thomas Jefferson knew that the Constitution of the United States needs to be a living charter, remaining fluid, relevant to the times. It makes the most sense for an ever-evolving society that sees incredible advancement and changes around them nearly every day.
Breaking down this immensely important constitutional point of view, we can agree that Jefferson believed the rule of law and governance in the United States should progress as the people and times do.
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
I appreciate what Jefferson is saying here, you don’t write constitutions to constantly amend and twist. Of course, there must be immovable, foundational aspects of a document that outlines how the country should work. But to his second point, there must be some fluidity as humankind progresses throughout generations.
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
Jefferson leans into the notion that it is common sense to expect that the people will develop new inventions, new ideas, new technology, new opinions, new ways of living; and as the populous continues to advance, the institutions, the government, the rule of law itself, must also keep up with the times and the people they serve.
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
This is a nice insight into Jefferson's sarcasm, painting a simple verbal picture to make his point. People outgrow things, period. If we are not growing, we are not living. Therefore, if the guide of governance that serves as a foundation of our country’s rule of law does not progress, grow, expand, and mature, then it is a dead document. It becomes stale and does not serve its actual purpose because it does not represent the people of the times. What’s the point of an irrelevant constitution?
The last Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992; they are not a common occurrence. Most of the suggestions expressed below do not require such a heavy lift. And by no means is this post meant to be argued by legal scholars. These are non-partisan opinions and ideas from a citizen that make common sense, as Thomas Paine would say.
Electoral College update
In a true democracy, the electoral vote must reflect the popular vote. There have been at least 700 amendments proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College. A September 2020 Gallup poll found that 61% of Americans were in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, up 12% from 2016.
There are reasons it exists, very succinctly:
The founding fathers wanted to balance the will of the population against the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the will of the masses can drown out the minority.
Also, the original intention of using electors instead of the popular vote was to safeguard against uninformed or uneducated voters - taking the final decision out of their hands and into the hands of electors who were informed and more likely to make the best decision.
But today, modern technology like news apps, podcasts, as well as 24/7 cable news gives voters a myriad of information at their fingertips. This allows them to make more informed voting decisions in a way that was not foreseen by the Founding Fathers.
Also, several significant voting laws that limited direct democracy have already been modified or discarded. For instance, the 15th and 19th Amendments, which gave the right to vote to former male slaves and women, respectively.
Another major issue is that the Electoral College gives too much power to swing states and allows the presidential election to be decided by what is essentially 11 states (Actually 12, thanks to Georgia). Presidential candidates make 90% of their campaign stops in these battleground states. They can easily get away with ignoring the rest of the country.
Further, the Electoral College ignores the will of the people. Almost 160 million voted in the 2020 election, yet just 538 people decide who will be president. In 2000 and in 2016, the winner of the popular vote ended up losing the presidency. What is the point of democracy if a person’s vote counts less in a highly populated coastal city than someone who lives in the midwest? As the Electoral College has been in play for over 200 years, gaming the system is down to a precise science in 2021 and has been for decades. Many times, the will of the voter is a mere inconvenience to these candidates. Not naming names, but some political parties benefit a bit more from the gerrymandering and voter suppression.
There has to be a better way.
The system needs an upgrade. Whoever gets the most votes, wins. End of argument.
For U.S. Presidential candidates
Age limit
Look, I respect experience level, I also respect my elders. But I am unsure that someone over the age of 70 should be running for President. Just as a person needs to be a minimum of 35 years old to be eligible to run, it makes sense to have a maximum age as well. I would suggest age 69 as the oldest. At such an advanced age, it is more than likely you have slowed a step or two compared to when you were 50. It is just a fact of life. I am not an ageist nor do I think that a 76-year-old cannot be effective in the job. But I do believe we need our representatives to reflect the people they serve. If the median age in America is 38 years old, then our President should be closer to that age as opposed to double it. Having an age cut-off at 69 will not change it so drastically, but it could lower the average age of candidates going forward.
Mandatory psychological test
This is self-explanatory. If you are up for the most important role of running the country, with all of its demands and infinite challenges, we the people need to know that a candidate is up for the job. Release the results publicly so we can assess more acutely how a candidate thinks. It would be infinitely helpful to psychologically evaluate their motivators, decision-making process, and overall cognitive health. What type of disposition do they have? Do they demonstrate an element of psychopathy? How would their behavior change under duress? All important factors when analyzing predictors of behavior, and deciding who ultimately deserves our vote.
Taxes are a prerequisite
Anyone running for president needs to release tax returns to the public. We cannot risk compromised candidates. The public has a right to know the financial history of a person running for the highest national office. This may not have to be a law but should be a prerequisite for anyone’s candidacy.
Term limits for Congress
If congress more accurately represented the U.S. population, it may look more like AOC (31) than Chuck Grassley (87). Is it representative of our country if most members of congress look like every Leisure Village in southern Florida? It feels like a bunch of older white men freeloading off the government in their retirement years. A gravy train that is the breeding ground for corruption. Term limits allow a Senator or Congressman to serve in their prime. If they are fortunate enough to serve out the limit of their term, a younger candidate would then take their place who will more precisely represent the constituency. The fact that a senator or congressman can win election after election (fairly or unfairly) until they are well into their 80s makes no sense! Especially if we want our government to actually be effective. We want young and hungry, not old and complacent.
Term limits for Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices
The primary goal of the life tenure of federal judges is to insulate the officeholder from external pressures. After being appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, these officials are in their seats until they drop dead. I am not so sure that a life appointment insulates any of these judges from political or external pressure. If anything, it can be argued that it allows them to dig into their partisanship even deeper, further enabling their skewed interpretation of the law. In other cases around the world, life tenure lasts until the set retirement age. The Supreme Court Justices of the United Kingdom have life tenure, but must step down and retire by age 70. In my humble opinion, this makes the most sense. Why should any judge be able to sit in their seat for the rest of their life? Set a retirement age for federal judges and SCOTUS and keep the wheels of government turning with younger, relevant stewards.
I suppose the point of this post is to offer an opinion and some ideas that could help improve life in America. Obviously, there are so many other factors and issues that I did not even touch. In my experience, some people are super rigid in how they view history and the way they think things “should be”. There are many who are terrified of change and would rather go back in time. This tug of war between progress and holding on to the past is why we are witnessing such divisiveness between Americans today.
The reality is, all life progresses; it does not regress. Like Bruce Lee says, ”Be water, my friend.” There is greater strength and wisdom by being flexible and embracing change. I remain effective in leading people and projects in advertising by working agile. Meaning, projects require frequent reassessment and adaptation of plans. Things always change, problems inevitably arise, and we must adapt and overcome them. I look at our democracy like one enormous project — things will shift in unexpected directions and adaptation is required for success. Something that was written 230 years ago, although brilliant, is bound to have some out-of-date ideas. Take a moment to reflect on how many years that is and how fast time seems to elapse in this day and age. I look at my first iPhone from 2007 and think it was from the Stone Age.
Thomas Jefferson was well aware and knew that the Constitution should be a living, breathing document that matures with the ages.
The status quo is not working for all Americans. We need new ideas. Innovation is paramount to our survival.
Country over party. Power to the people.