« Group Theory in the Bedroom | Main | More Inflation »
New constitutional amendments?
Travis, a loyal MR reader, writes to me:
Given our culture and the political environment, both now and in the foreseeable future, what do you predict will be the next constitutional amendment and in what year do you think it will be passed (plus or minus five years)?...If forced to make a prediction, I would argue that between the years 2020 to 2025 there is a p=.25 that there will be some sort of constitutional amendment liberalizing same-sex marriage -- at least giving same-sex couples equal rights and benefits that married couples currently receive but not necessarily allowing them to be officially "married".
I do not expect further amendments anytime soon but please tell me why I am wrong. Due to greater political competitiveness, it is harder to overcome the relevant hurdles than before, as there is always someone to fight on the other side or ask for a different version of the amendment. And the so-called "low-hanging fruit," such as repeal of Prohibition, seems to be gone. If I had to pick, I'll predict some version of a recast Equal Rights Amendment but "nothing anytime soon" still remains a better prediction in my eyes.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 24, 2008 at 07:34 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
I do not expect any constitutional amendments in the next 20 years.
The system is too polarized and all of the big issues that would require a
constitutional amendment (marriage, abortion, equal rights) would be
beyond compromise for large groups of the populace and their representatives.
Posted by: Scott Miller at Jul 24, 2008 7:46:01 AM
Is marriage even mentioned in the US constitution?
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Jul 24, 2008 7:46:07 AM
You guys are optimists...
I think the most likely one will be a revival of the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Posted by: JB at Jul 24, 2008 7:50:48 AM
A constitutional amendment has to be approved by three quarters of the states. This is a pretty high hurdle. I would bet a bottle of your favorite beverage that no amendment is approved in the next twenty years.
Posted by: Ned at Jul 24, 2008 8:01:24 AM
A constitutional amendment has to be approved by three quarters of the states. This is a pretty high hurdle. I would bet a bottle of your favorite beverage that no amendment is approved in the next twenty years.
Posted by: Ned at Jul 24, 2008 8:01:44 AM
A constitutional amendment has to be approved by three quarters of the states. This is a pretty high hurdle. I would bet a bottle of your favorite beverage that no amendment is approved in the next twenty years.
Posted by: Ned at Jul 24, 2008 8:01:51 AM
As an outside observer, I'd say that the amendment most likely to be passed in the medium term would concern District of Columbia voting rights in Congress. Even that would be quite unlikely, though. Surely anything more ideologically contentious couldn't pass, except if one party wins a huge landslide on a non-centrist agenda.
Posted by: Millian at Jul 24, 2008 8:03:08 AM
It doesn't matter what it is, the political class would find ways around the amendment and shred it to pieces within the first year.
Posted by: Jeff at Jul 24, 2008 8:05:47 AM
Why bother, when a "living constitution" and the right justices will do the job. For example, the Court has already done everything the ERA would have done.
Posted by: Alan Gunn at Jul 24, 2008 8:10:36 AM
For the last eighty years, the only changes to amendments are things involving numbers or terms of employment. Given the power of federal judges, there is no other reason to amend the constitution. Making DC a state would be the only thing that cannot be done by courts alone.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Jul 24, 2008 8:32:26 AM
The next amendments will deal with immigration.
Posted by: Mike Fladlien at Jul 24, 2008 8:32:33 AM
You don't need a constitutional amendment for gay marriage: the full faith and credit clause is enough.
Posted by: Rubin at Jul 24, 2008 8:34:09 AM
How about an amendment that clears up the parts of the 2nd that the ACLU can not comprehend?
Posted by: Jay at Jul 24, 2008 8:45:35 AM
I expect the electoral college to go.
Posted by: Larry at Jul 24, 2008 8:52:54 AM
I expect an amendment to institute futarchy.
Posted by: josh at Jul 24, 2008 8:59:58 AM
I hope the electoral college goes, but given recent gerrymandering activities and the knowledge that Republicans would not win the presidency for at least the next 40 years, I doubt it will happen.
Posted by: meter at Jul 24, 2008 9:00:26 AM
Once Iraq is over, if enough people still care, I could see an amendment restricting the President's discretionary power to use the military.
Posted by: Cyrus at Jul 24, 2008 9:03:46 AM
You don't need a constitutional amendment for gay marriage: the full faith and credit clause is enough.
Not really...e.g., Virginia's recent amendment defining marriage as between man and woman. Despite full faith and credit, states like VA are going to fight it. Federal recognition (via an amendment, court case, whatever), would be necessary.
Posted by: katiet at Jul 24, 2008 9:34:45 AM
I thin an amendment allowing non native born citizens to be President is the most likely candidate. Both parties have candidates they could conceivably run (Jennifer Granholm and Arnold Schwarzenegger) and the rule is anachronistic. I don't think a British loyalist is going to come to America, become a citizen, get elected and then have the US join the commonwealth.
Posted by: Jeremy at Jul 24, 2008 9:44:39 AM
meter wrote:
"I hope the electoral college goes, but given recent gerrymandering activities and the knowledge that Republicans would not win the presidency for at least the next 40 years, I doubt it will happen."
What a remarkably odd statement. Republicans have won 7 of the 9 elections since 1968, only one of which was without a plurality of the popular vote (2000).
The electoral college won't go away because there are too many small states that rely on their "tiebreaker" potential to generate lots of sweet, delicious pork. But I really don't see it moving the needle much on Presidential elections. Yes, the Republicans get an advantage from the fact that they dominate low population states which have dis-proportionally high electoral vote counts. But that is balanced by the fact that under the winner-take-all system the Democrats are all but assured of getting all of the votes for CA, NY, IL, MA etc., despite the fact that there are millions and millions of Republicans in those states.
Posted by: sd at Jul 24, 2008 9:52:03 AM
Ooops, sorry - make that 7 of the 10 elections...
Posted by: sd at Jul 24, 2008 9:54:25 AM
The only possibility even remotely on the radar screen is abolition of the Electoral College, and maybe the natural-born citizen requirement.
If provoked, I could also see a constitutional amendment banning conscription. But it would take a mighty big provocation. (I leave for some future discussion the pesky fact that the Thirteenth Amednment, properly read, already bans it.)
Posted by: KipEsquire at Jul 24, 2008 9:56:36 AM
I could see an amendment guaranteeing some form of a right to privacy.
Posted by: Dolohov at Jul 24, 2008 9:59:37 AM
"I don't think a British loyalist is going to come to America, become a citizen, get elected and then have the US join the commonwealth"
Why not? More or less likely than granny being recruited by Al Qaeda to hijack a plane with her knitting needles?
The assumption that there are high hurdles to amendments means that it would either be something inconsequential, or something remarkably stupid in response to another "crisis." Maybe both. We could get a terrorist attack and having The Terminator as commander in chief will make people feel safe.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 24, 2008 10:12:22 AM
p=.25????????????????????????
I'll let Overcoming Bias speak to this.
See When (Not) To Use Probabilities
Posted by: M at Jul 24, 2008 10:27:56 AM
