The Problem With the Constitution

The Constitution is a riddle that has confounded and delighted politicians and their constituents alike for two hundred years. The thirty-nine individuals that sired this document created an enigma without a hint of clarity. Modeling our entire government after an anachronistic document elicits a deadlocked country that derives ambivalent meanings from it and takes illogical and sometimes abusive actions in the name of these interpretations. Therefore, the ambiguous Constitution should be instrumental in the functioning of our government only up until the point of subjectivity; beyond that point, it should only serve one of its two primary functions: a framework of government, but not a foundation for basic law.

Conflict has always played a major part in anything having to do with the Constitution, and it was no different back in 1787 when the fifty-five delegates first met in 1786 with a vision to overhaul the Articles of Confederation. Four months of debate and collaboration were needed to settle the clashing views "between large states and small, between strong central government and state’s rights, between men who wanted a king in all but name and those with more democratic ideas" ("Government of the United States" 787). Eventually, these men reached a settlement: the Great Compromise. This version was not accepted by all; only 39 of the 55 approved and signed for the Constitution on September 17, 1787, and 16 rejected or exempted themselves at the time ("Government of the United States" 787). How is it that two centuries later, we are able to put our faith in a document that almost a third of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention could not accept?

"We the People of the United States." The very opening words to our Constitution are directly misleading. "‘We, the People of the United States’ includes ONLY those 39 men who signed the Constitution on September 27, 1787" ("Constitution Delusion"). Was there any mention of slaves? Women? No and no. Those thirty-nine people comprised of a single class of academic, land-owning, white males. If there had been any intent for the phrase "We the People" to encompass the entire populace, surely the Framers would have said something on behalf of those who could not and were not allowed to speak for themselves at that time.

The rest of the words following those first ambiguous few have led to just as much debate and manipulation in the name of "Constitutionality." The Dred Scott case ruled that slaves were property. Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the "separate-but-equal" doctrine, permitting segregation of the races. School prayer has been abandoned in favor of "separation of church and state." A right to privacy authorizes genocide of the unborn. All these illogical and abusive actions were somehow justified to legislators at some point in time by the Constitution. Admittedly, most of the foolishness in these cases is a result of those interpreting the Constitution, not of the Constitution itself (as is proven by the fact that the former two examples were later overturned, also in the name of the Constitution). Yet, if either the Constitution has authorized a government like today’s to exist or has neglected to avert it, it is to be blamed for the results.

When considering that the Constitution was drafted in the eighteenth century, one is obligated to wonder whether the system is suitable for the twenty-first. Adaptability is crucial in making the Constitution harmonious with current times. Our current system of ensuring adaptability is through use of amendments to modify the Constitution. Nevertheless, the difficulty in passing amendments almost makes it a futile "asset." One-third plus one members of Congress, or one-fourth plus one of the states can kill an amendment, making it a difficult and obstinate process (Sundquist 13). No other country requires such unanimity for amending a Constitution as the United States (Sundquist 242).

If adaptability is not an option, then it is best to hope that the Constitution is not an antediluvian document. Unfortunately, hope fails as the antiquity is apparent, as well as other major flaws. One instance of an outdated idea is in regards to war powers. Sundquist explains:

...but that simple language [the Constitution’s terms that waging war was Congress’s responsibility] was written in an age of sailing ships and horse-drawn cannons, at a time when the United States was a minor power with no global interests to defend...now, however, the United States has grown to the rank of superpower...the decision to defend an interest must be made in minutes...and the Congress may be out of session. Moreover, the Constitution did not define war. (224)

The executive branch has also yet to reach the acme of flawlessness. In explaining the need for a "safety valve" for the President (to ensure the leader is qualified), Sundquist states, "But with the democratization of the presidential selection process...the fixity of a president in office for four full years, no matter how incompetent he may prove to be, is a weakness...that can, in a time of grave emergency, be perilous" (162). Impeachment is a complex and unlikely process, and the demanding grounds that must be met to warrant impeachment means that an unqualified or discredited leader may not be subject to necessary firm congressional control. Also concerning the term of office is the ephemeral length of a term: merely four years. An unprepared president may take up to a year just to assemble a Cabinet and staff, study the issues, and learn how to carry out his duties (Sundquist 109).

Perhaps the most thorny challenge is the question in trying to figure out what the Framers’ intent was in drafting this foundation for basic law. Loose-constructionalists and strict-constructionalists are at odds to decide how strictly to interpret the Constitution: whether to give the government any powers except those that the Constitution will not grant it, or only to confer to the government power that the Constitution explicitly states ("Government of the United States" 792). Interpretation of the Constitution has proven to unpredictable and even carelessly blasé, evidenced by two of our amendments: the 18th and 21st. Two amendments alone deal with prohibition: one banning alcohol, the other repealing the first decision. ("Government of the United States" 787). This imprecision extends to other areas too, such as income tax. The Supreme Court had decided that the income tax law of 1894 was unconstitutional because it was not "in proportion to the census," as laid out by the Constitution (art. I, sec. 9, cl. 4). In 1913, eighteen years after this judgment, the 16th Amendment was passed, allowing Congress to impose an income tax ("Government of the United States" 792). It is inconceivable that our government would be so imprudent to throw around laws directly inconsistent with each other and to the Constitution.

This confusion over the Constitution is still an issue today, with one of the hottest political vendettas being between pro-gun and anti-gun, both sides able to adjust the Constitution to be in accordance with their cause. The second amendment states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (U.S., Constitution). Anti-gun activists claim that the pro-gun side tends to omit the first half of the second amendment, "A well-regulated Militia," which is critical to their argument. They claim that each state had it’s own "militia" at the time the Constitution was adopted, consisting of citizens acting as part-time soldiers, and the "militia" was "well-regulated" because the constituents had to meet particular requirements, such as training and furnishing their own firearms. This, claim anti-gun activists, makes the second amendment outdated because of changes in the militia; we no longer have a militia composed of ordinary citizens. Additionally, rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute; for example, freedom of speech does not permit one to falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theater ("Myth of the Second Amendment").

Pro-gun activists claim that "the basic right to bear arms outlined by the second amendment encompasses a freedom that has been central to American life for over 200 years--the right to take up arms to protect yourself, your family, home or possessions against threats to your safety and security" ("Gun Control"). They also argue that the Supreme Court placed the right to bear arms in the same category as other distinct rights protected from the government in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, and that "contrary to the assertion of the gun prohibitionists, the Second Amendment protects the same people as other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights; namely, you and me" ("Second Amendment").

The very ambiguous nature of the Constitution has proven itself a number of times, from the doubt during the era when it was first drafted to the cases over our current times and issues. Is it safe to fervently stand behind our hallowed Constitution when it has proven to be a dubious and misunderstand document? We will continue to abuse and misconstrue it, and with the Framers no longer around to tell us what their true intentions were, it is time to start governing without it. To use the Constitution as our outline of government is fine; there is little debate over what the Framers meant when they established requirements to be an elected official, or what a "checks and balances" system entails. To use the Constitution as a foundation for basic law is trickier though, because we then start involving our vested interests to pick out and decipher the parts of the Constitution that support our views. There is and can only be one truth, yet there will never be agreement on what that truth is, so searching for it is merely an unending game and one more issue to fight over.

Works Cited

Barton. "Gun Control is not a ‘Silver Bullet’ Solution." Business Press. 20 Aug. 1999: 31.

"Government of the United States, The." The Volume Library. 1974 ed.

Sundquist, James L. Constitutional Reform and Effective Government. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1986.

U.S. Constitution. Amend. II.

U.S. Constitution. Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 4.

Myth of the Second Amendment, The. Handgun Control. 11 Apr. 2001. <http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/second.asp>

Constitution Delusion, The. James Hazel. Free World Order. 25 Apr. 2001. <http://www.buildfreedom.com/condel1.htm>

Second Amendment and the United States Supreme Court, The. Stefan Tahmassebi. National Rifle Association. 27 Apr. 2001. <http://www.nraila.org/research/20000504-SecondAmendment-001.shtml>