Preface: This was the final essay for a political science class, where we were asked to describe what changes we would make to the Constitution if we were able to. It should be warned that these changes may result in revolution or massive organ failure.

The American Constitution has had a long, revered history, and it is widely acknowledged as integral to every political issue and conflict that arises in the United States. It would be absurd to deny it as the sole shaping factor for our government in all its forms. Nonetheless, while contemporary politics debate only relatively ephemeral issues in contrast with the politics near the beginning of our government, there is growing resentment over the power of government, which some perceive to intrude excessively into our lives. Libertarian politicians, who by definition favor a government that exists only to ensure that an individual's assets are preserved and that others will not interfere with them, have been the leading political force in this direction. Indeed, both federal and state governments have abridged many of our rights in order to attempt to guarantee us our wellbeing. Let us not forget the nature of government in this discussion: it exists as an institution in which people invest their faith and resources only for the purpose of protection from any number of harmful elements; the nature of government is so that it exists only at the discretion of its constituents.

The most vital part of the Constitution in terms of its empowerment of the federal government is indeed the Commerce Clause, which states that Congress has power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" (US Const, Ar. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). The wording of this section has been oft criticized for being far too vague, and indeed this is understandable as the Constitution was intended only to be a rudimentary framework of our government. Congress will and has worked to the extent of its powers, so every possibly legitimate interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been prodded with legislation. This has allowed for immense expansion of the federal government to a point where its reach is far too intrusive. The powers that the Commerce Clause grants Congress therefore must be abridged.

The Constitution, drafted only a year after the foundation of our federal government, could not possibly have predicted the situation in which society is in today. Its relevance to almost every issue in modern political discourse is limited to the circumstances in which it was imagined. The process of industrialization, the onset of massive urban expansion and subsequently urban decay, and the massive growth of America to a world superpower could not have been foreseen accurately, and the federal government's current compensatory state could not have been predicted. Naturally, enterprising politicians have sought to exploit every issue that has arisen, and so the federal government has become somewhat of a paternal eye, ensuring the wellbeing of citizens by moderating even actions which do not harm others. This is unacceptable. I, personally, do not want to invest my resources in a government that will then use them to prevent me from performing consensual actions of any sort. Although this phenomenon cannot be blamed solely on the Commerce Clause (the self-preserving instincts of bureaucracies and the persistence of journalism capitalizing upon perceived social faults are equally to blame), the Commerce Clause's permissible interpretations nonetheless allow the federal government unprecedented jurisdiction over these matters. I propose that these freedoms given to Congress be restricted. The definition of "commerce" may include traffic and trade between states, but something that indirectly affects such commerce will be free from the federal government's jurisdiction. If a trade is permissible in one state and illegal in another (or if interpretation as to its illegality is open), then the government's jurisdiction will also apply. The federal government will not have the authority to deem what was previously legal (in terms of the states' laws) interstate commerce illegal, only to mediate disputes. An unintended consequence of this may be to severely restrict the effects of taxation. Ordinarily, this would result in a massive economic deficit due to unchecked federal spending, but this would fortunately be limited by the severely decreased scope of the federal government. Since technically I have eliminated the federal government's power to tax, I must remedy this by some sort of procedure in which states directly fund the government: I propose that this is accomplish by means of taxation proportional to each state's respective domestic product (or possibly the product of median or mean income and population, a similar, although not directly related, statistic). States and municipalities (if that power is delegated to them by the state) now have sole power over taxation. This has the added benefit of encouraging experimentation with different methods of taxation (flat tax as opposed to fair tax, for instance), and does not single out any state for an unfair portion.

Over a half of our current budget is dedicated to past and present military spending. Although an isolationist foreign policy may be somewhat contentious, it also severely limits both our taxation and the future expectations of (and burdens placed on) our government. Although America is a relatively prosperous nation, there is no expectation nor right of ours to intervene in other nations unless we are being directly attacked, and if we eliminate precedent for such actions, there will not be. Analogously, I propose a Constitutional limit on so-called "authorizations of force;" they are little more than a euphemism for a declaration of war with fewer of the institutional limits. If we are to take a part in such organizations as the United Nations, we must recognize that they are an invaluable medium for international mediation; if a nation poses a severe threat in terms of, say, nuclear armament, then it is the responsibility of the United Nations to impose economic sanctions, not that of the United States to topple governments which have not shown any aggression towards the United States (the Iraq War is an easy example, although we have been somewhat of a self-imposed paternal superpower since the beginning of the Cold War). Thus, I propose that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that a government must declare war on or directly attack the United States in order to have war declared upon them, and that "authorizations of force" be prohibited. If a nation tacitly supports a terrorist faction that attacks the United States, there must be incontrovertible evidence supporting this; if not, is the responsibility of international organizations to mediate such disputes. Already we have sliced out 30% of our immediate spending, and in a decade or two, after past war debts have finally been settled, 50% of our federal spending will have been eliminated (assuming that the Iraq War has otherwise continued to that point, or some other war with a similar investment, and that the military has been minimized in my example). Let us not forget the government's restrictions on commerce, however: organizations such as the FCC (possibly), NIH, FDA, DEA, and USDA will be, over time, deemed unconstitutional and eliminated. The benevolence of these organizations is arguable, and sometimes very elusive: the DEA, for instance, has a somewhat frightening record of self-preservation in circumstances where its presence is inarguably harmful. Regulation over what was previously these agencies' prerogatives will be granted to the states, who will have the power to regulate such goods or regulations: if the states elect not to do so, private interests will likely fill in the gap (provided an opportunity). A little aside: rootbeer277 points out that the elimination of the USDA would likely complicate things unnecessarily. This may be true: fortunately, I didn't eliminate the federal government's ability to amend the constitution, so if massive issues arise, they only need a two-thirds majority (should be easily done if it's a real problem) to allow the federal government jurisdiction over agriculture.

This system of government enjoys several benefits. Most importantly, the interests of constituents of states are more directly represented, preventing the consequence of strong federal government where independent groups are not adequately represented; in other words, states and even municipalities lack the ability to self-govern. This is a regressive force most of the time: policy experimentation is much more discouraged on the national level due to the magnitude of the consequences which may arise, so states become a testing ground, so to speak, for experimental legislation (much as Massachusetts recently was for the legal sanction of gay marriage, although the foretold consequences of that case were limited to apocalypse and plague). The second benefit of importance is that of economic growth: certainly, massive tax cuts will benefit the economy by encouraging spending. The substantive budget deficit we face now would be likely swept aside by this growth.

The final change I would make is somewhat isolated from the others, though a necessary remedy. The Bill Of Rights was intended originally only to restrict the powers of the federal government, but with my proposed system, the federal government has few powers, and indeed the states take charge over much legislative duty. While the process of incorporation has restricted many rights of the states with respect to prosecution, the process is not yet completed, as legally all amendments must be incorporated individually. So the final change I propose making is to incorporate every right guaranteed protection to United States citizens from the federal government into restrictions on the states. While the Supreme Court will still maintain absolute judicial supremacy, the balance in legislative power nonetheless requires that our rights have a compensatory amount of protection.