Certainly depends on who you ask... If
you were talking to a left-leaning hipster, they'd probably tell you
it's 250 year old trash written by a group of slave owning racists
and misogynists. They'd tell you the times and technology have moved
beyond what the document can be interpreted and adapted to, and get
annoyed how people hide behind it in order to stonewall their
perception of “progress”. Conversely, if you were talking to a
right-leaning Budweiser King, they'd probably tell you it's second in
perfection to the almighty Christian Bible and should be treated as
unquestionable gospel. They'd tell you it's not only worth fighting
and dying for, but it should be forcefully spread to every corner of
the globe...
I believe there's truth somewhere in
the middle. Not one blinded with patriotism that's indoctrinated with
dangerous nationalism, or one that has a statist obsession with
achieving Utopian dreams through expansive government and tyrannical
legislated “perfection”.
The constitution is an imperfect
document, written by flawed men whom had a unique perspective of
having to risk everything for what they were about to create.
Intended to secure liberty for the people who wrote it, it has
evolved over time with amendments that have both improved and
weakened it. These changes have made it more inclusive to every one
of our citizens (15th and 19th amendments), yet
also has a history of changes that are regressive for individual
liberty (16th and 18th amendments). The
fundamentals, however, were carefully crafted with an acknowledgment
of government being something that's necessary yet inherently evil.
This framework defined limitations, checks and balances, and the role
it's expected to play. It also ensured specific rights and protection
for the people in order to place further checks on our government
(2nd, 5th and 14th amendments)
One thing
we'll have to accept though, is that it's impossible to make it
perfect. We live in a very diverse and opinionated society that'll
never fully agree on what perfection really is. For example, my view
of perfection would involve a document that specifies the exact roles
of government and limits them to a very narrow list of functions
they're allowed to perform. Its function should be no more than
ensuring its citizens right to live a life free and unmolested of
harmful or oppressive actions. However, I'm enough of a realist to
know that what I just wrote would give an aneurysm to someone who
would measure success in the number of new laws created each year. My
point being that not allowing one specific agenda to completely
overrule the other is a compromise. The alternative would be an
Ochlocracy (tyranny by the majority) where we
force others to live in our ideal world.
Should we accept it as good enough? I
believe we've found a balance that more or less works for our
specific culture. It's not impossible to correct major discrepancies
or injustices, but adds layers of difficulty to enacting ridiculous
sacred cows. The layers of difficulty tend to be the major
frustration for those ridiculing the constitution as outdated, but
there's a simple argument for why difficulty is important. As the
power of government changes hands frequently, you won't always have
your side as the majority. It's what prevented George W. Bush from
ultimately banning gay marriage, or Barack H. Obama from defining
healthcare as a rigid collective obligation, or more recently
stonewalled left-wing activists from removing one of our most
significant rights. The major con to this system is the never ending
political drama, as no one side can ever be a clear winner and
controversial issues are never fully put to rest. My view may be seen
as complacent... but we have a comment section below, and I challenge
you to suggest any major changes to our constitution that would
improve our system of government without alienating those outside
your ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment