America's Broken Constitutional Promises: A Betrayal Of Principles

America's Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, has been described as both brilliant and highly flawed. While it offers the promise of freedom, it has historically excluded Black and Indigenous people, women, and other marginalized groups. The Constitution has endured and evolved, yet critics argue that it has not kept pace with modern times, resulting in a dysfunctional government ill-equipped to address contemporary challenges. America's government was designed for a world that no longer exists, and its interpretation has been influenced by restrictive appointments and interpretations that hinder equal justice and opportunity. The document also lacks explicit mention of key concepts like the separation of powers, and its interpretation relies on extra-textual sources. Despite its flaws, the Constitution provides the tools and principles for equality and liberty, but it is essential to recognize its limitations and work towards effective governance in the present.

Explore related products

Land Use and the Constitution: Principles for Planning Practice (AICP Handbook)

$82.99 $190

Civil Disobedience in Focus (Philosophers in Focus)

$27.24 $54.99

Rights, Religious Pluralism and the Recognition of Difference: Off the Scales of Justice

$42.99

Participation and Democratic Innovation under International Human Rights Law (Human Rights and International Law)

$41.23 $54.99

Parental Imprisonment and Children’s Rights (Routledge Studies in Crime, Justice and the Family)

$42.55 $55.99

Power, Authority, Justice, and Rights: Studies in Political Obligations

$56.95 $61.99

Ineffective governance due to an outdated constitution

The U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, is the oldest written constitution in the world. While it has been amended and endured for over 200 years, there are concerns that it is outdated and no longer fit for purpose in the modern world.

The Constitution was designed for a much smaller, agrarian society, and the federal government was not expected to do much. The founders were mainly concerned with avoiding the "tyranny of the majority", so they purposely separated powers across different branches of government, making it difficult to take swift and coherent policy action. This structure has led to ineffective governance, with Congress often unable to act in the national interest and instead promoting special-interest politics.

The Constitution has also been criticised for its failure to protect the rights of marginalized groups, including Black people, indigenous people, and women. While amendments were made after the Civil War to abolish slavery and ensure equal protection under the law, there are still concerns that the Constitution does not go far enough to guarantee equal justice and opportunity for all.

Harvard scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that the Constitution's antiquated institutions, such as the Electoral College, have enabled an increasingly extremist GOP. They also highlight the danger of a federal judiciary with lifetime appointments, which can allow political minorities from the past to dominate present-day majorities.

Some have suggested that small, low-risk constitutional changes could improve governance, such as giving presidents a more central role in policymaking. Others argue for a complete overhaul, with a new constitutional convention to rewrite the nation's fundamental laws. While there are risks associated with amending the Constitution, the current document may no longer be suitable for governing a modern, diverse, and complex nation.

Lack of explicit fundamental economic rights

The United States Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, has been criticised for lacking explicit fundamental economic rights. While the Constitution guarantees certain freedoms and protections, it does not explicitly address economic rights, which some argue are fundamental to ensuring equality and social justice.

Economic rights refer to the economic conditions necessary to secure an adequate quality of life, including access to employment, housing, healthcare, and food. These rights are inherently linked to social rights, such as equal access to education, social services, and cultural participation, which are also not explicitly guaranteed in the US Constitution.

The absence of explicit economic rights in the Constitution can be attributed to historical and cultural factors. During the late eighteenth century, when the Constitution was drafted, social and economic rights were not a primary concern for its authors. This chronological explanation, however, falls short of justifying the ongoing absence of these rights, as constitutional meaning evolves over time.

Cultural factors have also played a role, with the general failure of socialist movements in the United States contributing to the perception of economic rights as secondary to other rights. Despite this, economic rights have been recognised as compatible with a market economy, and other countries with similar economic systems, such as South Africa, have explicitly included these rights in their constitutions.

The interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution by the Supreme Court have also influenced the realisation of economic rights. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Court came close to recognising social and economic rights, but critical appointments by President Nixon shifted the Court's stance. This has contributed to a trend of appointing justices with restrictive interpretations of the Constitution, hindering the full realisation of economic and social rights.

Despite the lack of explicit economic rights in the Constitution, the United States has a history of addressing social justice through economic policies. For example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal aimed to combat unemployment, poverty, and hunger during the Great Depression. Additionally, the international human rights system, which the US helped shape, provides for basic economic rights, demonstrating a recognition of their importance.

Restrictive interpretation of the constitution by presidents

The United States Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, has endured and evolved over the last 234 years. However, critics argue that America has not respected the principles of the Constitution, which was designed for a different era. The Constitution has been criticised for imposing a structure of government that is outdated and ill-suited to modern times.

One example of America's failure to respect the principles of the Constitution is through the restrictive interpretation of the document by presidents. For over 40 years, presidents have appointed justices based on their restrictive interpretation of the Constitution and their likelihood of resisting full and equal justice and opportunity through the law. This trend has created a barrier to equal justice and opportunity, with many courts, including the Supreme Court, being hesitant or actively opposed to ensuring equal rights.

The Constitution, as it stands, provides the tools, resources, and principles to afford full equality and opportunity for everyone in the country. However, the restrictive interpretation of the Constitution by presidents and the subsequent appointment of justices has hindered the realisation of these principles.

The written Constitution does not enumerate all the rules, rights, principles, and procedures that govern modern America. For example, the document does not explicitly mention the separation of powers and the rule of law. As a result, constitutional interpretation relies on various factors, including precedents set by early presidents and Congresses, common practices of modern American citizens, and venerable judicial decisions.

The restrictive interpretation of the Constitution by presidents has contributed to a trend of ineffective and dysfunctional government in America. The Constitution was designed for a primitive, agrarian society, and while it beautifully articulated the notion that the government's power flows from the people, it has failed to keep up with the rapid changes in American society. As a result, the government struggles to effectively address the nation's problems, such as terrorism, pollution, inequality, and persistent poverty.

Explore related products

Ethics, Ethnocentrism and Social Science Research

$144 $190

National Security Review of Foreign Investment: A Comparative Legal Analysis of China, the United States and the European Union (The Rule of Law in China and Comparative Perspectives)

$34.98 $55.99

Development-induced Displacement and Human Rights in Africa: The Kampala Convention (Routledge Contemporary Africa)

$182.59 $55.99

Political Bubbles: Financial Crises and the Failure of American Democracy

$14.98 $31

Democracy in America

$21.02 $26

The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document That Fails Them

$31 $45

Exclusion of Black and Indigenous people, women and marginalised groups

The United States Constitution, while founded on the principles of freedom and equality, has historically been interpreted to exclude and marginalise certain groups, including Black and Indigenous people, women, and other minority groups.

The Constitution, in its original form, did not explicitly mention race, but it did count enslaved people as three-fifths of a person in state populations, effectively institutionalising slavery and perpetuating racial inequality. This interpretation was challenged by Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet Robinson Scott, who filed suits to claim their freedom while still enslaved, arguing that they had lived in free territory. However, the Supreme Court denied their claim, asserting that enslaved people were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". This decision was only overturned with the 14th Amendment, which established birthright citizenship and granted African Americans the same constitutional rights as all American citizens.

Indigenous peoples have also faced exclusion and discrimination under the Constitution. Despite having their own legal systems and a diplomatic constitution that governed interactions with European empires, Indigenous peoples were not considered US citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The Supreme Court further contributed to the oppression of Indigenous peoples by declaring them "savages" and justifying the taking of their lands.

Women, too, were excluded from the original Constitution, with no provisions or mentions of them as a distinct group. This exclusion has contributed to the historical denial of full citizenship and civil rights for women, which continues to be a subject of debate and contention.

The interpretation and application of the Constitution have had a significant impact on the marginalisation and oppression of these groups. Through uprisings, revolts, and acts of resistance, Black Americans, for example, have fought for their constitutional rights and recognition as equal citizens, with Reconstruction marking a pivotal era in the black freedom struggle.

Despite the ideals of freedom and equality espoused by the Constitution, the historical exclusion and marginalisation of these groups have had lasting consequences, and efforts are still being made to address these injustices and create a more inclusive constitutional framework.

Lack of separation of powers and rule of law

The US Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, has endured and evolved over the years, but some argue that it is outdated and ill-suited to modern times. One critique of the US political system is that it lacks a clear separation of powers and rule of law.

The US Constitution does not explicitly mention the separation of powers or the rule of law, which are cherished concepts in American political culture. The absence of these principles in the written Constitution has led to confusion and misinterpretation. For example, the text implies that the vice president presides over their own impeachment trial, which seems contradictory.

The interpretation of the Constitution relies on various extra-textual factors, such as precedents set by early presidents and Congresses, common practices of citizens, judicial decisions, and influential sources of guidance, such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These extra-textual aids support and enrich the written document, but they also highlight the lack of a clear separation of powers.

The US political system, with its checks and balances, aims to separate powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, in practice, there may be a blurring of these boundaries. For instance, the president can issue executive orders with the force of law, and Congress can delegate legislative power to administrative agencies, potentially concentrating power in the executive branch.

Additionally, the appointment of Supreme Court justices by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can lead to a concentration of power in the judicial branch. Justices with particular interpretations of the Constitution may be appointed, influencing the direction of the Court and impacting the separation of powers.

To address these concerns, some argue for reforms in the process of appointing justices, while others suggest small, low-risk constitutional changes that allow for a more effective government suited to modern challenges.

Frequently asked questions