Is the US Constitution still fit for purpose?

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The U.S. Constitution is our secular society’s most revered text. It is the bedrock on which the republic was built. It has generally served us well for the last 237 years.

Changing it is like trying to rewrite the Ten Commandments. More than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1791, when the Bill of Rights was added. Only 17 have been ratified.

This anniversary year is a time to celebrate how far America has come and to ask a direct question: Is the Constitution still fit for purpose?

The world is profoundly different from what it was when the Framers wrote the Constitution. They could not have anticipated the threats posed by artificial intelligence, global warming, and weapons of mass destruction. Technologies and risks develop much faster than the political will to govern them, risking lives, liberty, privacy and agency over our happiness.

The Framers did anticipate official corruption and wanton violations of the Constitution. They designed three equal branches of government to check and balance each other. But that system has broken down. Congress has often capitulated to presidential corruption. Motivated by ideology, the U.S. Supreme Court has placed the president above the law. The current president is engaging in unprecedented corruption, illegalities, and perversions of justice that have severely damaged the American people’s faith in government.

Insofar as the Constitution establishes guardrails against these abuses, President Trump often ignores them, as well as social norms like fairness, dignity, decency and integrity.

The Supreme Court has also given undue power to special interests by allowing them to make unlimited contributions to our increasingly costly political campaigns. The justices ruled erroneously that campaign donations are protected speech. In fact, they are bribes that corporations and rich Americans use to purchase the loyalty of elected policymakers.

Now, two-thirds of voters are dissatisfied with America’s direction. Occasional unhappiness is understandable, but public trust in government has been in the low 30s since mid-2013. As I noted in another recent column, more than 90 percent of voters oppose Trump’s corrupt, self-serving practices.

So, parts of the republic’s foundation are outdated and showing cracks. We should fix its cracks and fortify it for the future.

How would the Constitution be different if it were written today? Dare we hold a constitutional convention? Some fear a convention would get out of control, but no proposed amendments would survive without ratification by 38 states.

What are some examples of the changes that need discussion?

Popular vote: The Electoral College could be replaced so that presidents are chosen by the popular vote. The Constitution could make gerrymandering more difficult by requiring that electoral districts be redrawn by independent citizen commissions.

Campaign finance: The Constitution could clarify that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated without violating the First Amendment. It could require that candidates use public financing for campaigns. Spending limits need not constrain voter education or debates, as candidates can use free social media to communicate with voters.

Future generations: Because civilization’s environmental footprint is capable of permanently degrading life on the planet, more than 80 countries have incorporated the rights of future generations in their constitutions and laws. Those rights are only implied in our founding documents. The Constitution’s Preamble says it intends to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” but this does not have the force of law.

Rights of nature: Nature, which has its own right to exist, provides trillions of dollars in critical services to civilization. At least 39 countries recognize nature’s rights in judicial rulings, constitutions or laws. The Constitution could explicitly recognize the polluter-pays principle and the Public Trust Doctrine, and broaden both to protect the atmosphere, oceans, soils and ecosystems that comprise Earth’s “safe operating spaces.“

Right to recall: Since the system of checks and balances has collapsed, should voters have the ability to recall presidents and members of Congress? The damage Trump has done in one year shows that periodic elections may not be enough to protect the republic. Although recall has not been seriously considered at the national level, 19 states allow citizens to recall legislators or governors before their terms expire.

Citizen initiatives: Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia allow citizens to initiate or alter legislation by referenda. Should this right be extended to national ballot initiatives?

Presidential pardons: Trump pardons friends and supporters and sells pardons for profit. His pardons have deprived victims of nearly $2 billion in restitution and penalties against convicted criminals. Should the pardon power be better defined?

Thomas Jefferson believed the “tree of liberty” should be refreshed by rebellion every 20 years or so to keep government honest. After 250 years, its roots could use some maintenance, too.

William S. Becker is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,” and a contributor to “Democracy in a Hotter Time.” He previously served as a senior official in the Wisconsin Department of Justice. He is currently executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.