- Jan 15, 2004
- 6,311
- 2
- 0
Obligatory disclaimer: I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I just find the question interesting, so I'm exploring it.
So. The U.S. Constitution was originally an absolutely necessary document. In order to maintain the freedoms and ensure the federal and state powers that the framers desired, it was necessary due to the lack of centuries of precedent, as existed in England. However- can the 250 year old document properly address the issues and needs of a modern America? Could the U.S. function without it? Theoretically, the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are well-enough ingrained in American society for the Constitution to be rendered unnecessary.
Why would this be desireable, though? Well, one could make the case that certain issues that didn't have a place in the original Constitution need to be addressed today. The document can certainly be amended; however, is the process not drastic enough, or too easily held up by a minority?
Also- the Constitution has become the thing Americans protect, instead of the ideals that stood behind it. Instead of looking to preserve and adapt the egalitarian ideals to modern life and necessity, too many people simply defend the Constitution "Because that's what it says," and not because of what is moral or logical.
A few possible (Please, don't debate the issues themselves, im just mentioning them as potential reforms that are pertinent to the issue at hand) examples:
-Privacy- Privacy is a right that is implied, but not explicitly stated, in the Constitution. If the concept of privacy is moral, should it matter that it isn't spelled out, word for word, in the document? Would "strict constructionists" be so eager to defend the Constitution if it advocated privacy, and thusly interpreted, a woman's choice? If (and please don't take this to mean abortion, if you disagree with the concept) something is moral, but prohibited by the Constitution, should the document be upheld, or should it be changed? Example: slavery.
-Guns- In today's world, guns contribute to crime. The facts are clear: In Europe, where guns are almost impossible to obtain, there is a negligible murder rate. Here in the U.S., we have an astronomical homicide rate. "Only the criminals would have guns," is factually disproven. So- should the Second Amendment be retained, although it is clearly useless (a militia is a laughable concept in today's society), and, in its effective application, immoral?
So. The U.S. Constitution was originally an absolutely necessary document. In order to maintain the freedoms and ensure the federal and state powers that the framers desired, it was necessary due to the lack of centuries of precedent, as existed in England. However- can the 250 year old document properly address the issues and needs of a modern America? Could the U.S. function without it? Theoretically, the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are well-enough ingrained in American society for the Constitution to be rendered unnecessary.
Why would this be desireable, though? Well, one could make the case that certain issues that didn't have a place in the original Constitution need to be addressed today. The document can certainly be amended; however, is the process not drastic enough, or too easily held up by a minority?
Also- the Constitution has become the thing Americans protect, instead of the ideals that stood behind it. Instead of looking to preserve and adapt the egalitarian ideals to modern life and necessity, too many people simply defend the Constitution "Because that's what it says," and not because of what is moral or logical.
A few possible (Please, don't debate the issues themselves, im just mentioning them as potential reforms that are pertinent to the issue at hand) examples:
-Privacy- Privacy is a right that is implied, but not explicitly stated, in the Constitution. If the concept of privacy is moral, should it matter that it isn't spelled out, word for word, in the document? Would "strict constructionists" be so eager to defend the Constitution if it advocated privacy, and thusly interpreted, a woman's choice? If (and please don't take this to mean abortion, if you disagree with the concept) something is moral, but prohibited by the Constitution, should the document be upheld, or should it be changed? Example: slavery.
-Guns- In today's world, guns contribute to crime. The facts are clear: In Europe, where guns are almost impossible to obtain, there is a negligible murder rate. Here in the U.S., we have an astronomical homicide rate. "Only the criminals would have guns," is factually disproven. So- should the Second Amendment be retained, although it is clearly useless (a militia is a laughable concept in today's society), and, in its effective application, immoral?
Facebook
Twitter