Is Amending the Constitution a Good Idea?

Last night I sat down to watch the State of the State address by Governor Daniels here in Indiana. I found myself pleased with the speech overall. He gave relatively few specific plans and instead acted as the cheerleader-in-chief (promoting Indiana's 8.5 minute transaction time at the BMV, or our declining unemployment rate surrounded by Midwest states who find theirs rising). However, he had to cover the property tax mess, and the way he did it got me thinking.

In his four step plan for solving the "property tax crisis" here in Indiana, he included an instruction that the general assembly should offer "permanent protection against the return of unaffordable taxes, though a permanent, constitutional cap of one percent of a home's value[.]" While I won't pass judgment on whether such a plan is good or not, it brings up the notion of amending the constitution. Ought the constitution be amended in such a way?

Black's calls a constitution "the fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government, defines the scope of governmental sovereign powers, and guarantees individual civil rights and civil liberties." Should a constitution then state the design of the General Assembly? Yes. Should a constitution state that the government can tax? Presumably. Should a constitution guarantee the right of citizens to bear arms? Yes. But should a constitution put a specific percentage cap on taxes, or force the Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget (unless 3/5 of Congress vote to overspend), or to limit pardons between October 1 and January 21 of any presidential election year? Perhaps not.

Such things may be wonderful laws. I have no problem with a law saying that we ought to balance the budget. I have nothing against a law limiting taxes. But such things make for better laws than they do constitutional amendments. I understand that the idea of putting it into a constitution is to make it "permanent". I understand that putting things in a constitution automatically makes them "constitutional" and thus impossible to overturn in the courts. But does such technical verbiage about the operation of government belong in a document ensuring us fundamental rights and powers?

Chief Justice John Marshall didn't seem to think so. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), Marshall discusses whether all the powers of the government ought to be found in the Constitution. "A constitution," he writes, "to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. [W]e must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding."

I couldn't agree more with Marshall. Our goal ought to be to have a constitution that the average citizen can read and understand. To weigh it down with tax brackets, definitions of marriage, requirements of "moments of silence", or any other frivolous notion that could pass in a generation is to dilute the meaning of a constitution as a general document putting forth general principles upon which we can build interpretations and legal reasoning.

So, with all due respect to our great Governor and the various representatives, both in Indianapolis and in Washington, D.C.: keep your hands off my Constitution.