The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, a far cry from the modern world of 2018. The Founding Fathers weighed actions to consequences and made decisions that would appeal to King George III of England and the men of the colonies. It was not created with the recognition that the world may change drastically over the centuries, and therefore was made difficult to change to keep up with the times. The document’s old-fashioned traditions age poorly and fit imperfectly to mend today’s issues, so it is left to the people to try to render it to their lives as they can. The Constitution is a document that has not dealt with issues presented at the time of its making and neither does it deal with current issues, and therefore is not relevant to today’s day and age.
With all the effort put into writing the document, the Founding Fathers did not successfully write the Constitution to deal with problems as well as they hoped it would. The design of the Senate worked well at first, but has since then made smaller states inflate to compensate for their populations and be an unfair reflection of the people’s votes. This phenomenon aligns with what political scientist Robert A. Dahl refers to as the “democratic deficit,” where the representation is not proportionate to the population, thereby compromising democratic equality. Not to mention how the Electoral College is a faulty system to elect the President fairly – as remarked by George C. Edwards, it “violates political equality” (192). The men elected often do not protect the interests of the people they represent fairly, as it is their opinions that influence the vote, and often unfairly. The writers should also have created stricter rules for the men in leadership, instead allowing them to establish their own salaries and benefits, unbeknown and untouchable by the people they are supposed to serve. As a result, there are many gray areas in the Constitution that have the ability to be manipulated by the men that hold positions of power, as which often happens.
Over the last two hundred years, the Constitution has not adapted gracefully to the issues of present times. For one, it has been made to be hard to amend to retain its perfection as seen in the eyes of the writers. Article V outlines the requirements of passing amendments, and it is the demand that two-thirds of both Houses of Congress agree to propose it and then for ¾ of the states to agree on it. With that in mind, the amendments that have been added to the Constitution did not change the way the federal government functions. The Bill of Rights, the Amendments created after the Civil War, and the 19th Amendment allowing women to vote, as Mary Frances Berry notes, have only “remedied major defects in the original document.” Thus, it has failed to allow responsible lawmaking. When the majority of Amendments are just the bare bones to equality that the document supposedly established, there is a problem. The Constitution’s status as a sacred text has disallowed people to come forward and desire a change to make it easier for lawmakers to amend it to become a better document for the people. It has made America and its people live hundreds of years in unreasonable ways when better options exist.
The most significant question today is if the Constitution’s relevancy still stands. In present day, people treat the Constitution differently – some are traditionalists, sticking to the text, others depend on the Judicial branch to translate it to modern times, and many cherry-pick what’s convenient for them and ignore the rest. This phenomenon is echoed in the theories of constitutional interpretation, particularly in the debate between originalism and living constitutionalism. Originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, argue that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time it was adopted. In contrast, living constitutionalists, like Justice Stephen Breyer, advocate for a more flexible interpretation that considers the evolving norms and values of society. Compared to the other 22 democratic countries in the world, America ranks embarrassingly low when judged by the ratio of the rich to poor, success of social expenditures, gender equality, and economic growth in the country (Dahl 117). The Constitution serves America and its people more poorly than they would like to admit, that it is failing them. The facts stand against the rosy belief of the document’s perfection – it was written with flaws, bound to being unchangeable and unbending. The buffer to America’s progress lies in its treasured Constitution, and its fault to be outside the ability to change.
Given these points, the Constitution has failed the people of the United States to be the fair document it seems to be. The attempt to make states equal, the lack of effort to make voting equal, and the lack of clear rules and regulations for the people in power paints the document to be careless in important and abused details. The purposeful design of its difficulty to amend provides another fault, and that is the inability to change with the time and global situation to be able to deal with issues well. This rigidity is critiqued in the works of scholars like Sanford Levinson, who argue that the Constitution’s cumbersome amendment process hinders necessary reforms and adaptations to contemporary challenges. With those points in mind, the relevance of the Constitution drops as it becomes irrelevant and unuseful to the people of current times. The Constitution’s lack in care to vital details and difficulty to change to support modern issues makes it a document that’s relevancy has long expired.
Furthermore, the Constitution’s inability to address contemporary issues such as digital privacy, climate change, and systemic racism highlights its outdated nature. For instance, the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, was written in an era without the internet or digital technology. Today, issues of digital privacy and government surveillance require new interpretations and adaptations of this amendment, which the original text does not explicitly address. Similarly, climate change, a pressing global issue, finds no mention in the Constitution, leaving policymakers without a constitutional mandate to address environmental concerns comprehensively. The Constitution’s silence on these modern issues suggests that it may not be equipped to provide the necessary legal framework for contemporary governance.
Moreover, systemic racism, deeply embedded in American society, remains inadequately addressed by the Constitution. Although the Civil Rights Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) were significant milestones, they have not eradicated racial inequality. Critical Race Theory (CRT) scholars argue that the legal framework provided by the Constitution perpetuates racial disparities by failing to address the structural and institutional nature of racism. This critique underscores the need for a more robust constitutional approach to tackling racial injustices.
In conclusion, the Constitution of the United States, while foundational, has significant limitations in addressing both historical and contemporary issues. Its rigid structure, challenging amendment process, and silence on modern problems highlight its decreasing relevance in today’s society. The document, revered as a sacred text, has failed to evolve with the times, leaving America and its people struggling with outdated governance frameworks. To better serve its citizens, the Constitution needs to be more adaptable, addressing the pressing issues of the 21st century while ensuring equality and justice for all.