There is a common critique in the American public discourse about individuals, mostly leaders, that lack the ability or the will to conform to the political norms of the present. For example, the founding fathers of the United States are sometimes hounded for not progressing beyond the norm of slavery upon the creation of our new republic. While these claims might be warranted, attempting to evaluate the moral compass of past leaders through the lens of present norms is a fool’s task. On the contrary, if there was a mechanism in place that allowed norms to change through the necessary task of evaluating current law, leaders would be more accountable to the norms of the time.
A sunset clause is a provision that states a law will expire within a given date unless further extended. I believe we should apply a type of sunset clause to the United States constitution which would require a re-evaluation of the law of the land every generation. Such a re-direction in policy would ensure, with a good degree of confidence, that the country’s law is consistent with the beliefs and values of each American generation. There are several benefits such a measure would have, including a metric of assessing the leaders of any given time, increased buy-in to the laws by the populace, and an increased civil engagement from the populace.
Leaders of a republic cannot be expected to reverse contemporary norms in order to conform to their beliefs. Therefore, even if the likes of Jefferson, Adams, and Washington opposed slavery (and there is some support to the idea that at least Jefferson did),there would have been little they could have done to eradicate the practice due to the wide support of it among the people at the time. However, under a model where the law is evaluated often, our founding fathers would have had the opportunity to debate their thoughts on slavery and possibly affect change.
A necessary requirement of a state’s ability to enforce the law is that the people buy into the majority of the laws on the book. When there is a shift in public morality there must a subsequent shift in law, lest the government lose the legitimacy that only comes with representing the entirety of the people. In the status quo, states are too slow in adapting to the public morality. For example, there was overwhelming support of same-sex marriage long before the Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry for same-sex marriage is guaranteed under the constitution. Further, immigration increases the possibility that different ideals and norms are integrated, making it an imperative that laws change to accommodate everyone in the country. Each generation holds different values close to them and the law must be adjusted to conform to those different values.
Citizens need an incentive to remain engaged with the political system. If individuals do not believe that they can affect change within their government, then it is unlikely for there to be high levels of political participation. Under a system in which the constitution is re-evaluated every 20-30 years, public discourse and morality would have a direct relationship on policy and therefore citizens would be rewarded for engaging their ideas and persuading government officials that their stances should be considered in legislation. In an ever-changing world, the sunset clause is a necessity.
