What do you think of abolishing the Constitution of the United States of America?
I've been thinking of this some lately and I think I've come to the conclusion it's a necessary endeavor. Like most small 'l' libertarians I believe in strict construction-ism when it comes to issues of constitutionality. I firmly believe there is no point in having a written constitution if it is loosely interpreted or thought of as anything less than or anything more than a shackle on government power. However, given the fact that we have failed to update it, we’ve basically forced the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench, as it has come to be known.
Take for instance the most recent major case, the gun ruling. Some claimed it was the correct ruling, others claimed it was legislating from the bench. I’d personally fall on the side of those who think it was correct in the framework of our current constitution, but understand the argument from those on the left claiming those who wrote the thing had no idea what type of firearms would be available 200 years later. The thing is, the correct course of action is not to give the Supreme Court the power to rule on these matters, it’s to amend the constitution to what We the People want.
But we’ve abdicated our responsibility to update our constitution. WE should be having these debates, not judges. But given the fact that we refuse to do it, they are forced to. We are essentially passing off our responsibility to them. We force them to rule on their sense of fairness when we ask them to rule on issues that don’t exist in the document.
I do believe that the World belongs to the living. Just as you’d probably agree that someone in Canada has no right to determine your form of government, wouldn’t you agree that someone from 200 years ago has no right to determine your form of government? IMO, the libertarian stance should be #1 yes, strict adherence to written constitution. But #1A, demand the thing be repealed then re-written (or more better would be repealed and not rewritten).
There are other problems of course.
The Supreme Court has much more power than it ever was intended to. The idea that one of the branches of the Federal government has the final say on what is or what isn’t constitutional is a gross conflict of interest and entirely contrary to the idea of checks and balances.
And maybe more importantly the constitution is spelled with a capital C. It’s looked at as if it’s some sacred document touched by the hand of G-d. It’s put in a shrine, when it should be re-written with every generation, and amended in-between.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Pardon me. I feel a little odd and unsure of my surroundings. I've come upon one of those occassions where I agree with you. I do believe that the Supreme Court has too much power. And though it's supposed to be a separate branch, it's composition can be greatly influenced by the other two, making it of questionable independence.
"I do believe that the World belongs to the living ... It should be re-written with every generation, and amended in-between." -- beautifully put. Is the amendment process too complicated or too hard to attain? The only amendments in the last 50 years have been relatively minor.
Well I can't lay claim to the phrase "The World belongs to the living" it's an idea that gained syntax somewhere around the Enlightenment I think. I know Thomas Jefferson was fond of saying it, though I'm somewhat sure he didn't come up with it.
As far as the difficultly of amending the constitution is concerned, I don't think it should necessarily be an easier task. I don't think it's the process that has slowed the process of updating the constitution, I think it's just a lack of initiative of both political rulers (who have no incentive to put more vices on their powers) and the general public who grew increasingly politically apathetic over the past century.
At any rate, I appreciate your return to commenting here.
I don't often agree with you 100%, but this time I have to. The constitution, the original, should be encased in a museum (shrine), because it is a piece of our history. The constitution should be reflective of our country today, though, and although it frightens me to think what some idiots would put into it, I agree with your quote. The world does belong to the living, but do the living have the cajones and insight to step up and reframe our government?
Wow I have never thought the supreme court was the "problem" even though I don't like some of their rulings - this is so far a field - you guys are really out there!
What would you have in their place?
Missy
Mis, my point wasn't so much that the Supreme Court was the problem, but rather our appication of it. The problem isn't our courts, it's our constitution.
I should have read the whole thing more closley. Built in the constitution is a way to call a Constitutional Convention. I heard them talking about on NPR...they said it was set up to change things and was used the last time a very long time ago, but was mean to be used much more often.
Missy
Post a Comment