Legal Commentary

In yesterday's edition of Al Kamen's "In the Loop" column, which appears regularly in The Washington Post, Kamen reported on his conversations with a number of constitutional-law teachers (including me) about the provision they would want to read on the floor of the House.  Pam Karlan and Michael McConnell both zeroed in on the "no religious test" clause, which made my own request for the First Amendment's religion clauses redundant (as well as uncreative).  We also agreed that it might seem a bit unserious were I to leap for the 21st Amendment, notwithstanding that provision's many virtues.  So, I went with Article V, on the theory that -- especially given the suggestion in recent days that the Constitution's longevity might count against its relevance and / or comprehensibility -- we might all do well to remember that the Constitution itself provides a mechanism (perhaps not the most effective or efficient one, but maybe that was part of the plan), other than judicial review, for its own updating.

What provision would you pick, given the opportunity for one minute of Constitution-reading, C-Span fame, and why?