A constitution, whether it be a state-level document or one as prestigious as the U.S. Constitution, is no place to put specific policies. Policy is the result of politics, which is the function of the legislature. A constitution’s job is different. It gives structure to political activity; in many ways, a constitution is like a ballroom. The dancers inside are the politicians, and the dances they perform make up the political activity. Once the dancers leave, they have no place to dance, and the fun ends.

Or, if you prefer a different analogy, consider a glass of water. The glass is the constitution, which gives shape and purpose to the liquid inside. Dump the water out on a table, however, and it goes everywhere, making a mess.

Constitutions should only confine politics to a given arena, not enact specific policies. Yet that is what two Iowa politicians want to do. Rep. Steve King, who currently represents western Iowa in the U.S. House and is running for re-election, supports a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. King recently explained to the Ames Tribune that his plan would require majorities of 60 percent in Congress to raise taxes and limit spending by the federal government to 18 percent of gross domestic product.

Additionally, a candidate for the Iowa House of Representatives, Rob Bacon, wants to convert the state law that limits state spending to 99 percent of revenue into an amendment to the state constitution. Both plans, if successful, would make it significantly more dangerous to raise taxes and spend money.

Naturally, low taxes that allow businesses to thrive and low government spending that requires less of the people’s money is a good goal. People should be allowed to retain as much of their hard-earned money as possible so that they can make their own decisions about what to buy and so they can invest in their own futures rather than footing the bill for other people’s welfare.

Making these ideals a part of our formal, written constitution rather than maintaining a broad-based political philosophy that values individual liberty and discretion would make it dangerously difficult to raise taxes for temporary revenue and deficit-spend during emergencies. Sometimes, crises happen. When they do — and we’re not just talking about an economic meltdown caused by irresponsible banks and auto manufacturers — we need to be capable of quick, decisive action.

Granting exceptions to constitutional rule provides a precedent for endangering Republican liberties. If one situation can by a majority (even a large one) be designated an exception to the rule of law, what will prevent future majorities from carving out exceptions that benefit one part of society at another’s expense? The slippery slope is easy to slide down and difficult to climb.