Eleanor Finch
The United States Constitution has been a source of contention between the left and the right. The Constitution, signed 233 years ago, is an attempt to give practical expression to the principle of protecting the natural rights of the governed, especially liberty. However, by the 20th century, many American progressives had turned against the idea of limited constitutional government, favoring centralized control. This has led to accusations of Constitution worship and concerns that an abiding faith in redemptive constitutionalism has hindered progressive change. The left has also been critical of the lengthy amendment process and the concentration of power in the federal government. In recent years, there has been liberal outrage over Supreme Court decisions, such as overturning Roe v. Wade, which has further fueled the divide between left and right. Additionally, some on the left have accused the right of promoting anti-American views and endangering equal opportunity by seeking to transform America's promise of equal opportunity into a pursuit of predetermined outcomes.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Hate for Western Civilization | Anti-American views |
| Unlimited centralized control | Technocrats |
| Regulatory state | Unelected bureaucrats |
| Lack of commitment to democracy | Purging pro-democracy faction |
| Lack of commitment to freedom and equality | Violence |
| Lack of commitment to decolonization | Colonial accounting |
| Lack of commitment to anti-racism | White-nationalist accounts |
| Lack of commitment to free and fair elections | Disappearing people without due process |
| Lack of commitment to individual rights | Denaturalization and deportation |
| Lack of commitment to suppressing insurrection | Inaction on the Capitol riots |
| Lack of commitment to addressing national challenges | Inaction on the pandemic |
| Lack of commitment to addressing deep-rooted legal-political flaws | --- |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Calls for a new constitution
Some believe that the Constitution has failed and that a new one is needed. The US Constitution was signed 233 years ago as an attempt to give practical expression to the principle that the government exists to protect the natural rights of the governed, especially liberty. However, by the beginning of the 20th century, many self-styled American "progressives" had turned against the ideal of limited, constitutional government. They wanted a system of unlimited centralized control by wise and beneficent technocrats.
The regulatory state employs hundreds of thousands of unelected bureaucrats and gives them the power to create, interpret, and enforce rules and regulations. As a result, Americans are less free, less prosperous, and less happy. The US Constitution, in its original form, did not fully provide for what is now called a liberal democracy—a system with free and fair elections, individual rights, and limits on the power of the majority.
The US government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been cited as an example of a failure of the current constitutional system. Vaccines are being rolled out, but in the meantime, the country is accepting record-setting death tolls unmatched in other countries. President Trump has decided he will not even try to address the pandemic, and members of Congress are not using available constitutional tools to force a change in course.
In addition, the US Constitution has failed to protect democracy itself against an existential internal threat. For example, Trump's failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election posed a mortal threat to his career, but the insurrection became the perfect tool to purge his party's remaining pro-democracy faction. Trump has also risked defying a unanimous Supreme Court ruling to sustain his policy of disappearing people without due process.
Some believe that an abiding faith in "redemptive" constitutionalism has held back liberals, progressives, and the left from promoting major change in government structures. However, others argue that the left has done better at change-making when key figures and movements have made use of redemptive constitutional narratives and arguments.
Despite calls for a new constitution, a constitutional convention does not seem wise at the moment due to the emboldened nature of the far right and the procedural terms governed by Article V, which places great emphasis on the states for ratification.
US Constitution: Strict Construction Explained
You may want to see also
The left's anti-American views
One argument against the Constitution is that it has failed to address deep-rooted legal and political flaws, and has instead empowered forces of extremism. This perspective holds that the Constitution is an outdated document that impedes progress and social change. For instance, the struggle to link democracy and decolonization has been a challenge, with many Americans resistant to the idea of colonial accounting, which they see as a threat to their status and safety.
The left's anti-constitutional stance is also reflected in their criticism of American exceptionalism and promotion of anti-Western sentiments. They advocate for systemic change, often targeting the regulatory state and its unelected bureaucrats, who have the power to create and enforce rules that limit individual freedoms.
Furthermore, the left's anti-American views are demonstrated in their rejection of American-style constitutionalism in foreign policy. They critique American behavior that threatens the rule of law and international order, such as in the context of Gaza.
While the left aims to break free from "Constitution worship," it is important to recognize that the Constitution has evolved to adapt to new challenges and has enabled the emergence of a modern liberal democracy. However, some on the left, such as Elie Mystal, advocate for a radical rewriting or "smashing" of the Constitution, disregarding the progress it has enabled and the protections it affords citizens.
The Constitution's Many Accusations: A Comprehensive Overview
You may want to see also
Constitutional impediments
The United States Constitution, signed 233 years ago, is an attempt to give practical expression to the principle that the government exists to protect the natural rights of the governed, especially liberty. The Constitution is replete with provisions designed to limit governmental power and protect citizens' rights. However, some on the left have criticized and sought to overcome these constitutional impediments to achieve their regulatory agenda.
One critique of the Constitution is that it has failed to keep up with the times, leaving the United States unable to respond to national challenges and defend democracy itself. For instance, the government's response to the pandemic has been criticized as ineffective, with President Trump deciding "he will not even try" to make the virus disappear. This has resulted in a high death toll, indicating a failure of the constitutional system to perform its duties.
Another criticism is that an abiding faith in "redemptive" constitutionalism has held back liberals, progressives, and the left from promoting major changes to the structures of government. This faith in the Constitution has been described as “Constitution worship,” which some on the left seek to overcome by “smashing" it. For example, political commentator Elie Mystal has expressed a desire to "smash the things that are holding this country back," referring to certain laws and amendments that he believes are outdated and need to be eliminated rather than reformed.
Additionally, the left has struggled with linking democracy and decolonization. While Black and Indigenous activists seek an inclusive society with meaningful freedom and protection from violence, many Americans view colonial accounting as a threat to their status, wealth, and physical safety. This struggle has created constitutional impediments to achieving the left's goals of a more equitable and just society.
Furthermore, the left has faced challenges due to the emboldened nature of the far right and the procedural terms governed by Article V, which emphasizes the states for ratification. These factors create constitutional impediments that make it difficult for the left to pursue their transformative agenda within the existing framework.
Unanimous Jury Verdicts: A Constitutional Right?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution's failure to defend democracy
The Constitution of the United States was signed 233 years ago as an attempt to give practical expression to the principle that the government exists to protect the natural rights of the governed, especially liberty. However, over time, the Constitution has failed to defend democracy in several ways.
Firstly, the Constitution has struggled to balance a government strong enough to respond to national challenges, yet not so unchecked that officeholders can rule as authoritarians. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the US government was incapable of performing its duties, with President Trump deciding not to take any action to mitigate the crisis. This inaction resulted in record-setting death tolls, indicating a failure of the constitutional system to hold leaders accountable and ensure the government fulfils its responsibilities.
Secondly, the Constitution has failed to address deep-rooted legal and political flaws, including issues of race and the economy. While past reforms were influenced by contingent historical conditions, such as the New Deal and global decolonization, these conditions no longer exist today. The current constitutional arrangements empower forces of extremism and hinder the necessary changes to create a more inclusive society.
Additionally, the Constitution's focus on states' rights and procedural terms has made it challenging for transformative left agendas to succeed. This is evident in the struggle to link democracy and decolonization, as many Americans view colonial accounting as a threat to their status, wealth, and safety. As a result, the Constitution has failed to uphold the ideals of an inclusive society, where everyone is protected from violence and can achieve meaningful freedom.
Moreover, the Constitution's veneration has been criticised for holding back liberals and progressives from promoting significant changes to the government's structures. Critics argue that the Constitution's idolisation has prevented the left from effectively challenging the rise of illiberal forces, such as Trumpism, which pose an existential threat to American society and democracy.
Finally, the Constitution's inability to mitigate national crises, such as the January 6 insurrection, has raised concerns about its effectiveness in defending democracy. The delayed response and inaction by Congress highlight the system's failure to address internal threats and protect the nation.
In conclusion, while the Constitution was intended to safeguard liberty and limit governmental power, it has struggled to adapt to modern challenges. Its failure to defend democracy has been evident in various crises, from the pandemic to political extremism, revealing the need for a new constitutional approach that better serves the nation.
Florida's Constitution: Separation of Powers Explained
You may want to see also
The left's promotion of unlimited centralised control
The United States Constitution was signed 233 years ago as an attempt to give practical expression to the principle that government exists to protect the natural rights of the governed, especially liberty. The Constitution is filled with provisions designed to limit governmental power and protect citizens' rights.
However, by the beginning of the 20th century, many self-styled American "progressives" had turned against the ideal of limited, constitutional government. They desired a system of unlimited centralized control by wise and beneficent technocrats. This shift has been accompanied by violent protests and anti-American views promoted by the progressive elite since the turn of the 21st century. They want to replace Western Civilization and the Constitution with something else.
The left's promotion of unlimited centralized control is evident in their push for a regulatory state. This state employs hundreds of thousands of unelected bureaucrats with the power to create, interpret, and enforce rules. As a result, Americans are less free, prosperous, and happy. The left's ideal of unlimited centralized control contrasts with the Constitution's aim to limit governmental power and protect individual liberty.
Furthermore, the left's critique of the Constitution has led to accusations of promoting major changes in government structures. For example, Elie Mystal, an American political commentator, expressed a desire to "smash" parts of the Constitution that are holding the country back. He suggested ignoring laws and amendments passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, including the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery and the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to freed slaves.
While the left argues that the Constitution has failed to address national challenges and protect democracy, others counter that the Constitution's failure to deliver on its promises is due to a lack of effort or inability to try. This debate highlights the ongoing tension between those advocating for unlimited centralized control and those committed to the Constitution's principles of limited government and protection of individual rights.
Constitutional Initiative: Democracy in Action
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The left has been accused of waging a long war on the Constitution, promoting anti-American views and seeking to replace Western Civilization with something else.
The left has often been frustrated by the Constitution, particularly the lengthy and politically excruciating amendment process.
Liberals have sought a system of unlimited centralized control by wise and beneficent technocrats, which has resulted in Americans being less free, less prosperous, and less happy.
Some on the left have argued for scrapping the Constitution and building a genuine democracy, while others have pushed for an inclusive society for all, where everyone can achieve meaningful freedom and protection from violence.
The left has argued that constitutional fidelity has generated ameliorative change in the past and that abandoning it now would court irrelevancy or right-wing extremism.
