The Living Constitution: Amendments for the 21st Century

December 2005 Issue

If you could add any three amendments to the Constitution, what would they be?

We put this question to Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan, founder of the “public choice” school of political economy, and his answer kicks off this, the premiere issue, of Cato Unbound. Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, author of America’s Constitution: A Biography; Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and William A. Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, offer their critical assessment of Buchanan’s proposals — and just might name amendment ideas of their own.

As new nominees to the Supreme Court are contested and confirmed, questions of constitutional interpretation figure prominently in public debate. Ideologues left and right worry that new judges will read their ideology into the Constitution, slowly reshaping and reinterpreting it, decision by decision. Of course, the Constitution provides for the possibility of it own rapid reshaping through amendment. Rather than fight over judges who will reshape the Constitution over time, perhaps Americans ought to debate directly amending the Constitution.

Are there amendments that could improve the prospects for liberty, prosperity, and security in the 21st century? If so, what are they? Would any have a chance in today’s political climate? Is it dangerous to meddle with Constitution through amendment?

You don’t have to be a federal judge, a law professor, or a Nobel Prize-winner to think about the future of the Constitution . Suppose you could push a button and have your heart’s desire for amendments XXVIII, XXIX, and XXX. What would they be?

Go ahead: blog about it, or send a letter. If you say something especially smart, we may ask your permission to publish your thoughts right here on Cato Unbound. Send your letters to wwilkinson@cato.org. Remember: the conversation only begins at Cato Unbound.