The Ark of America

(6 of 8)

America now is incomparably more democratic than it was 200 years ago. Originally, only the House of Representatives was elected directly by the people. Now the Senate is directly elected, and sees itself as responsive to the people. The President is in effect directly elected by the people, not by the vestigial Electoral College that the founders invented. Even the Supreme Court has long since taken on a representative character. Said Justice Thurgood Marshall of the founders: "They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendant of an African slave."

But where does salutary reinvention of America leave off and dangerous tampering with the nation's governmental structure begin? Today, various forces have been agitating for changes. Some have called for a constitutional convention or a constitutional amendment to force the Federal Government to balance its budget.

In Congress a group of conservative Republicans, led by Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah in the Senate and by Philip Crane of Illinois in the House, has been trying to reduce the Supreme Court's authority by introducing so-called court-stripping bills. The bills may be constitutional, under Article III, Section 2, which provides that Congress may set limits on the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. "At stake in all of this," writes Historian Michael Kammen, "is nothing less than a campaign against the system of checks and balances intended by the founders."

Helms proclaims his purposes clearly: "Article III, Section 2 is the fundamental key for congressional efforts to restrain federal judges who distort rather than enforce the Constitution." A prime target: abortion cases. "Through similar legislative enactments," Helms said, "Congress could restore voluntary school prayer and severely limit enforced busing. There are other areas in which Congress could act as well." Barry Goldwater, hardly a liberal, is enraged by the tactic: "I've spent my whole life railing against those who use any excuse to get around the law or the Constitution." For the moment, however, the stripper bills are going nowhere in a Congress controlled by the Democrats.

In another part of the forest, some Anglophile theorists would like to see the American system take on the British parliamentary form. Not long ago in American Heritage magazine, Historian James MacGregor Burns declared, "I would favor a constitutional amendment permitting the President not only to choose members of his Cabinet or top executive officers from the Senate or the House, but allowing those appointees to retain their seats in Congress. This not only would draw the President and Congress into somewhat closer teamwork, but would serve as a stabilizing force in the Executive and an enhancement of executive leadership in Congress."

The parliamentary form would effectively destroy the Congress as an equal and separate branch of the Federal Government. That, of course, is the intent. Congress tends to be a nuisance to Presidents. Those favoring the parliamentary arrangement want to make a majority-party President more powerful, influential and effective -- precisely what the founders feared to do.