Originally established by the founding fathers, the American Constitution was designed to safeguard personal freedom and guarantee equal opportunities. However, it is important to evaluate its effectiveness as a set of written rules aimed at reconciling government power with individual rights. Are there any weaknesses that compromise its status as the supreme law?
Critics often contend that the constitution’s limitation on government and its ability to take quick and decisive action is a significant weakness. Nevertheless, this characteristic, which stems from the document’s establishment, is also its most powerful quality. The constitution ensures that any actions taken by the government must adhere to the laws it establishes, irrespective of their impact on society as a whole.
The slower process of amending the constitution weakens the government and authority as it requires a significant majority to propose and ratify changes. This is different from the UK political system where there are no codified or entrenched laws that restrict action or create bureaucracy. However, the intentional weakness of the amendment process was designed by the founding fathers to prevent government power from overshadowing individual freedom. Therefore, maintaining this objective may involve compromising some expediency.
The strength of the constitution lies in its guarantee that the government cannot violate citizens’ rights or make harmful changes to the country. Moreover, it provides an advantage over the UK system by being less susceptible to shifts in public opinion or emotion. The slower and less impulsive nature of governance ensures that temporary surges in popularity do not lead to hasty actions (Prohibition being the one exception).
One weakness of the constitution is the ambiguous wording of its articles and amendments, allowing the Supreme Court to have substantial power in interpreting them. The constitution possesses the authority of Judicial Review, granting it the ability to supersede anything in the government unless it is a ratified amendment.
The text suggests that the Founding Fathers desired a clear separation of powers with checks and balances as the most effective form of governance, but it seems that too much power has come to rest with the Judiciary. Additionally, the ambiguous language of the constitution poses another issue – individual and government rights are subject to interpretation and may not be as secure as they initially appear. Furthermore, it can be argued that one branch of government, which is not elected, can override the constitution through their interpretations.
However, some may contend that the absence of clear clarification in the constitution is also a significant advantage. This is because it has required very few amendments since its inception, which demonstrates its adaptable nature and relevance to contemporary society.
The flexibility of the constitution allows for a balance between excessive and weak government. It can be modified to align with a fresh perspective and a different interpretation. This feature incorporates the favorable aspects of the flexible yet uncodified UK constitution, as well as “higher law” constitutions in other Western nations. These “higher law” constitutions often impose burdensome and sluggish bureaucracies on their governments.
From my perspective, the contemporary relevance of the US constitution aligns with what I mentioned previously, except for one instance – The Second Amendment. This amendment originates from an era when possessing the ‘right to bear arms’ was seen as crucial for safeguarding property and freedom from tyranny. However, in today’s America, even states that strongly oppose gun ownership must still uphold this right.
One could argue that the opportunity to repeal this amendment at the state level has passed. However, this highlights another flaw in the constitution: its lengthy process allows a minority of states to ignore the desires of a majority. Unless 75% of states can agree, they cannot limit the enforcement of this outdated amendment.
One common criticism of the existing constitution is its inability to effectively advocate for genuine freedom. The United States prides itself on being a meritocracy that ensures equal rights and privileges for all individuals. However, upon closer scrutiny of historical events, this notion becomes more intricate. For instance, black slaves were deemed as only three-fifths of a citizen during Congress sessions, reflecting inequality that persisted throughout the era of segregation and even in Japanese internment camps (which underscores varying interpretations of the constitution for “US citizens”).
Discrimination is evident in the Constitution as it exclusively applies to certain individuals. While some may argue that this problem has largely been eliminated, discrimination can still be observed in contemporary America through laws targeting celebrities and affluent individuals. Moreover, a notable inequality exists within the legal system where only the wealthy can hire knowledgeable lawyers capable of manipulating the constitution for their advantage. This distortion of “justice” ultimately hinders liberty.
One possible counterargument to this claim can be observed in the bill of rights, which consists of the constitution’s initial ten amendments. The constitution asserts that all individuals are regarded as equal, and any disparities arise solely due to government actions. Nevertheless, this raises concerns regarding the potential for interpretation and manipulation of the document away from its original intent.
Another illustration of this matter emerges from a recent event where George Bush, without Senate approval, guided the USA into war. While this act might not have surpassed his authority as the executive and commander-in-chief, it raises apprehensions regarding disregarding the constitutional necessity to first seek approval from Congress. This necessity is in place to prevent an undue accumulation of power in one person.
The constitution incorporates provisions to prevent the concentration of long-term political power. Fixed terms, exemplified by Roosevelt’s case, impose limits on individuals’ tenure in government positions. Furthermore, staggered elections for the Executive, House, and Senate enhance accountability and enable regular citizen participation in shaping the government’s makeup. In contrast to the UK, where such influence may occur less frequently.
In essence, the presence of the constitution poses a dilemma. It creates obstacles for implementing any form of change, be it positive or negative, as it restricts the influence an aspiring idealist or revolutionary thinker can have. Consequently, this hinders genuine and beneficial transformations from taking place in the United States. Consequently, politics tend to become stagnant and monotonous, devoid of radical ideologies and diluted notions.
The involvement of the president in the constitution is a concern as it deviates from the founding father’s original intention. The congress was originally entrusted with the authority to declare war, but due to infrequent meetings, the power was given to the president instead. Consequently, congress now assumes a supervisory role over the president, which conflicts with the intended balance of power. This example highlights how the constitution has failed to prevent power consolidation. Another potentially hazardous aspect is the role played by electoral colleges in protecting democracy and enabling a free and natural path to leadership, as evidenced by the election of George Bush.
However, despite the argument that checks and balances are still present in the government, with Congress and the Supreme Court having the authority to impeach a president, irrespective of their amassed power, there are those who maintain that this is a beneficial aspect. They contend that a president possessing considerable power yet being accountable is more efficient compared to a potent but sluggish Congress. The president can swiftly take action and be reined in if they exceed their limits.
In summary, the perspective one holds towards government, either as a pragmatist or an idealist, ultimately determines their perception. Those who have a pragmatic approach value the challenges associated with amending the constitution and the protective measures it offers to its citizens.
