Paper Three
When addressing such a significant event as a Constitutional Amendment it is folly to think that any written law is going to permanently change human thought so it is wise to try to avoid legislating morality. Section VI of the US Constitution and the First Amendment addresses this directly through the separation of church and state.
In light of the knowledge of this folly it should follow that it is folly to try such legislation, but try we do. The failure of the 18th Amendment banning alcohol and the ongoing debate regarding attempts at legislating abortion or flag burning are fine examples of the folly of trying to legislate morality. Laws may be made but they will eventually be overturned. Laws regarding emotion and morality will always wax and wane.
What is not folly, however, is to create a set of rules that address specific actions in a limited environment. The Constitution does this with its lists of rights and responsibilities of its citizens and government. Regarding limited rules; if one thoroughly disagrees with the rules then they can simply avoid the environment. National laws cannot be avoided by citizens, short of emigrating, so therefore national laws should be limited in scope, as they are not limited in environment, or these laws will be doomed to failure after much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
A polite and equally free society must make rules addressing certain human behaviors or there will be no consequences to crimes with victims resulting in anarchy. To stand a chance of a law being lasting and fair, legislating human behavior must be uniform for all involved and, again, avoid attempts at legislating morality. That is why the original Constitution had to be amended banning slavery, extending the vote for women, civil rights, race rights and gender rights. These issues were initially asymmetric in our society, but a reflection of the society of 1789, and had to be adjusted. In making new laws, care must be taken to not create future asymmetry to avoid situations like reverse discrimination following laws addressing race minimums in various industrial sectors.
In the United Stated all populations fighting for fair rights will eventually win; be it years, decades or centuries. We are a dynamic country and asymmetry drives rebellion. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers shines here in the First Amendment with the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. New laws will be created but human nature dictates caution because if these new laws create future asymmetry, through overcompensation of rights or actions, then the new laws are doomed to failure. An example of human nature in this context is for an oppressed group to claim equal rights, frequently with the lament that "we just want equality", but when that equality is achieved that same group continues its momentum to create its own oppression either not realizing it or using the common justification of "they deserved it". The asymmetry persists and new rebellions are formed against the new boss. Overcompensation of rights or actions must be considered to avoid these actions and reactions.
Creating new laws addressing campaign finance, corruption, business influence and legislative and executive behavior must consider human nature including morality and overcompensation of previously intolerable behavior or it, like the 18th amendment, is doomed to failure. The aim must be to address asymmetric self interest uniformly. Regarding that, this amendment does not ban campaign finance; it limits its scope to only the represented interested parties. It does not ban leadership; it eliminates the asymmetry of political gangs with unchanging leadership. It does not create term limits; it creates leadership limits to ensure continued dynamics and fresh voices. It does not ban seeking higher office; it bans seeking higher office on the taxpayers dime. It does not ban political donations or campaign involvement and support; it makes these actions uniform for all citizens.
Self interest is an unavoidable trait for most and when presented with options for fulfilling the urge of self interest it is often too seductive to avoid. Political power offers such seduction and most, if not eventually all, fall to it. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." However to govern a country there has to be power in the hands of its leaders or again; anarchy. Capable people are preferred but without just compensation capable people will not put their lives aside to serve and we will again "get the government we deserve rather than the government we need." Pay our elected leaders well and hold them to a high standard. By attempting to eliminate the seduction that leads to corruption through this amendment there must be compensation and this is addressed by Section 5 paragraph two. It may seem expensive but the expense of corruption is much much greater in both taxes and civil unrest.
Our current political environment needs to be realigned to the interests of the people of whom our government is both made up of and directs. There needs to be the wisdom of our Senate and the representation of The House as the framers intended. Freeing these elected officials to focus on the issues of the day away from the limited power structure of party politics is as novel an idea to actually implement as the original Document of 1789. This Amendment’s adjustment will not create a perfect union, that is unobtainable, but it will usher in a new era that aims to create a more perfect Union and, to quote Lincoln, that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Back to Top