There have been a couple a books out there suggesting amendments to the US Constitution in order to make policy-making more rational and to harmonize relations between the executive and the legislative branches. One book is called 'A more perfect Constitution' written by Larry J Sabato; and the second is called' The Liberty Amendments' written by Mark Levin.

Both books talk about different things, and I wanted to suggest two key amendments that I believe would achieve the following: 1) more rational policy-making; and 2) more checks and balances in the institutions of government.

The two amendments are these:

i) "Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Union, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby the duty of the Congress to establish." - Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article I, Section 9, Clause 9.

ii) instituting term limits for Supreme Justices for a single non-renewable term of 12 years. - The Liberty Amendments (although I'm sure many other people have proposed this change as well).

The first amendment, along with line-item veto would have the following effects: first, it puts budgeting right in the hands of the President and makes him/her solely responsible for budgeting; now, some people might argue that this is a breach of the separation of powers doctrine, but the Legislature would still need to approve the amendments. Also, as it currently stands appropriations are determined by committees and powerful legislators who make their decisions based on sectional interests; the two-thirds majority means that they would need to reach across the aisle and compromise. Second, the two-thirds majority prevents 'tyranny of the majority' in appropriations, thereby preventing fickle majorities from spending money that would most likely benefit the more populous States at the expense of the smaller States. Third, it promotes communication between the two branches since Congress has to go to the President for any appropriations (unless two-thirds both Houses vote otherwise). This, in my view, allows the Congress to focus more on issues of national importance, such as gun control, social security etc. as opposed to pork-barrel spending projects or regional or sectional interests.