Democrats turnabout lands in right direction

Throughout my life, various Republicans have suggested amending the Constitution in one way or another. A few years ago, they suggested revising the 14th Amendment to get rid of automatic birthright citizenship. Before that, some proposed amending the Constitution to lock in the traditional definition of marriage. Ronald Reagan wanted a presidential line-item veto added to the Constitution.

On nearly every occasion, Democrats opposed such efforts, not just on the merits but on the puffed-up principle that we mustn't 'tinker” or 'tamper” with the genius of the Founding Fathers' constitutional design.

'We should not mess with the Constitution. We should not tamper with the Constitution,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared when opposing a victims' rights amendment in 2000.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) cried in protest to notion that birthright citizenship should be revoked: 'I think it's horribly dangerous to open up the Constitution, to tamper with the Constitution.”

'I respect the wisdom of the founders to uphold the Constitution, which has served this nation so well for the last 223 years,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proclaimed in 2011, in opposition to a balanced-budget amendment proposal. 'Let us not be so vain to think we know better than the Founders what the Constitution should prescribe.”

Then-Sen. Dale Bumpers of Arkansas opposed a balanced-budget amendment in the 1990s: 'As much respect as I have for a number of members of the Senate - and we have some very bright people in the Senate - there isn't anybody here, really, that I want tinkering with what James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and all of the rest of those brilliant people, the most important assemblage of brilliant minds under one roof in the history of the world, did.”

Now Democrats have changed their mind. Earlier this month the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee approved on a party-line basis a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. House Democrats have introduced a similar amendment.

The stated intent is to allow the government to regulate how much money people and corporations can donate to political campaigns. But such regulations can quickly step on the First Amendment.

But even though I think the proposed amendments are ill-conceived, I am delighted that the Democrats have taken this route. This is exactly how we're supposed to change the meaning of the Constitution. If the Constitution forbids X but the American people decide - through extensive political debate - that X should be permitted, then the only legitimate course of action is to change the Constitution to allow X.