Critiquing The Constitution: Valid Or Void?

The US Constitution has faced a variety of criticisms since its inception. While some critics have focused on the document's historical context and the intentions of its framers, others have pointed to what they see as its flaws in addressing modern-day challenges. Criticisms of the Constitution include its compromises with slavery, the equal representation of states in the Senate, the age limitations for certain positions, and the potential for tyranny or authoritarianism due to the president's powers. Some critics argue that the Constitution is to blame for America's political difficulties and that it lacks the power to implement domestic public policy. Others critique its silences on women and gender, as well as its failure to address modern threats and challenges adequately. While the Constitution is revered by many as a symbol of the nation's aspirations, some of its structural faults are believed to hinder its effectiveness.

Explore related products

The Know Your Bill of Rights Book: Don't Lose Your Constitutional Rights--Learn Them!

$12.63 $14.99

How to Read the Constitution--and Why (Legal Expert Series)

$14.36 $19.99

Constitutional Law as Fiction: Narrative in the Rhetoric of Authority

$20.21 $40.95

The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence

$21 $21

Interpreting the Bible & the Constitution (John W. Kluge Center Books)

$34.62 $73

American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation―and Could Again

$17.71 $32

The Constitution's reverence is a relatively new phenomenon

The US Constitution has long been a subject of criticism, with many believing it to be "broken" in some respect. The reverence for the Constitution that we see today is a relatively new phenomenon. For a long time, the Constitution was criticised for its inherent flaws and the crises that arose during presidential administrations.

One of the main criticisms of the Constitution is its inability to hold presidents accountable for their actions. The only way to remove an incompetent president is through impeachment, which is a difficult process. This has allowed presidents with little foreign policy experience and questionable decision-making capabilities to remain in office, causing potential harm. The Constitution does not require prior experience in diplomacy, government, or military service for presidential candidates, which is seen as a flaw by some critics.

Another criticism is the concentration of power in the presidency, which some argue has led to authoritarianism and tyranny. Presidents have been accused of circumventing the national security decision-making process and acting unilaterally in military campaigns, as seen in the case of Barack Obama's intervention in Libya.

The Constitution has also been criticised for its failure to address issues of race, class, gender, and political equality adequately. Scholars have pointed out the document's silence on women and gender, with critics emphasising the patriarchal context in which it was created. The Constitution has also been criticised for its compromises on slavery, with provisions for fugitive slave laws and a moratorium on banning the slave trade.

Furthermore, the Constitution has been called undemocratic, with criticisms levelled at the Electoral College and the equal state representation in the Senate. The age limitations for certain positions and the exclusion of naturalized citizens from the presidency have also been questioned.

Despite these criticisms, the Constitution is a powerful document that has been amended over time to address some of these concerns. However, the discussion around its flaws is ongoing, and some believe that further amendments are necessary to ensure its relevance and effectiveness in modern times.

The Constitution is undemocratic

The US Constitution has been criticised for being undemocratic in several ways. Firstly, it has been criticised for its age and its inability to adapt to modern times. For example, the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of the press, an individual's right to bear arms, and religious liberty and the separation of church and state are all points of conflict and criticism in modern times.

Secondly, the Constitution has been criticised for its lack of representation and its bias towards a wealthy elite. The age limitations that bar younger people from holding certain offices, as well as the equal state representation in the Senate, have been criticised for not reflecting the demographics of the American people. The Constitution has also been criticised for its compromises on slavery and its failure to address issues of race, class, gender, and political equality in a modern context.

Thirdly, the Constitution has been criticised for concentrating too much power in the presidency, which may lead to tyranny or authoritarianism. The lack of oversight and accountability for presidents has been a point of concern, with critics arguing that the difficult process of impeachment allows incompetent or overburdened presidents to remain in office.

Furthermore, the US Constitution has been criticised for its interventionist foreign policy and its support for dictatorships and opposition to nationalist movements, which some argue contradict its stated values of democracy and human rights.

Finally, critics have argued that the Constitution's focus on individual rights and freedoms does not go far enough to assure equality and the pursuit of happiness, especially in an expanding industrial economy. In conclusion, while the US Constitution has been celebrated for its style, endurance, and flexibility, these criticisms highlight areas where it may fall short of its democratic ideals and modern expectations.

The Constitution's original sins: slavery and gender

The US Constitution has been criticised for its original sins: slavery and gender inequality.

Slavery was a highly contested issue during the drafting of the Constitution. While some members of the Constitutional Convention voiced strong objections to slavery, they ultimately "consented to a document which laid a foundation for the tragic events which were to follow", as Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court, put it. The "three-fifths clause", which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population when apportioning representation, gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College, thus protecting and perpetuating slavery. The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. This compromise, however, planted the seeds for future conflict.

The word "slave" was consciously avoided in the Constitution, but the document still provided important protections for the institution of slavery. The number of slaves grew steadily through natural increase and slave imports from abroad, and sectionalism between the northern and southern sections of the nation rose over the issue. The Constitution's failure to address slavery has been criticised as a "covenant with death and an agreement with Hell" by abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who burned the document in 1854.

While some argue that the Constitution created a central government powerful enough to eventually abolish slavery, as it did with the 13th Amendment in 1865, others contend that it put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction". The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude within the United States, except as punishment for crimes. This was one of the Civil War amendments that greatly expanded the civil rights of Americans.

The Constitution has also been criticised for its exclusion of women. The phrase "We the People" left out a majority of Americans, as women were not included in this democratic ideal. The Constitution thus enshrined gender inequality, reflecting the societal norms of the time.

Explore related products

The United States Constitution: Two Hundred Years of Anti-Federalist, Abolitionist, Feminist, Muckraking, Progressive, and Especially Socialist Criticism

$21.78 $39

The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation

$10.97 $22.99

Philosophy, The Federalist, and the Constitution

$87 $110

The Reckoning: A Definitive History of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Absurdities

$18.95 $18.95

The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution

$37

Saving The Constitution

$9.99 $19.95

The Constitution's structure is ineffective

The US Constitution has been criticised for its structural ineffectiveness in several areas. Firstly, the presidency has been criticised for its concentration of power, with some arguing that this allows for tyranny or authoritarianism. The president's role as the head of a political party, combined with their foreign policy and domestic duties, makes it difficult for one person to manage. This has resulted in criticisms of presidential incompetency, which is exacerbated by the lack of required experience in diplomacy, government, or military service.

The Constitution's structure has also been criticised for its age limitations, barring relatively young people from holding certain offices, and for its Electoral College system. The equal state representation in the Senate has been criticised, with demographers predicting that in a couple of decades, states representing just 30% of Americans will be electing 70 out of 100 senators. The structure of the separation of powers and checks and balances has also been criticised, with some arguing against bicameralism, the presidential veto, and judicial review.

Furthermore, the Constitution has been criticised for its failure to address issues of race, class, gender, and political equality adequately. Critics have pointed out the document's silence on women and gender, with women not mentioned at all, and the use of gender-neutral terms leaving open the possibility of women's political participation in the future, which was not the original intent. The Constitution has also been criticised for its compromises on slavery, including the three-fifths compromise and the provision for a fugitive slave law.

Additionally, the Constitution has been criticised for its inability to adapt to changing times and the needs of a growing and expanding nation. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for a "Second Bill of Rights" in 1944, arguing that the existing political rights were inadequate to assure equality in the pursuit of happiness and economic security.

Overall, while the US Constitution has been praised for its style, endurance, and flexibility, critics argue that its structural faults hamper its effectiveness and that amendments are needed to address these issues.

The Constitution fails to hold the president accountable

The US Constitution has been criticised for its failure to hold the president accountable. This is due to a number of factors, including the difficulty of removing an incompetent president from office, the potential for overburdening the president with duties, and the lack of oversight mechanisms.

Impeachment is the primary method for removing a president from office, but it is a challenging and rare process. This means that a marginally competent or incompetent president can remain in office for their full term, potentially causing significant harm. The Constitution also does not require any prior experience in diplomacy, government, or military service for presidential candidates, which can result in presidents with limited foreign policy expertise.

The role of the president is extensive, encompassing both foreign policy and substantial domestic responsibilities. The president is also the head of a political party, which can make it challenging for one person to effectively manage all their duties. This overburdening of responsibilities may enable incompetency and a potential power grab, as seen in the criticisms of presidential attention being divided and the potential for tyranny or authoritarianism.

There is also a lack of oversight for presidents, which can result in a lack of accountability and safeguards against incompetency. Critics have pointed to instances where presidents have unilaterally made decisions about military campaigns, such as Barack Obama's handling of the Syrian Civil War and the US intervention in Libya, without seeking the approval of Congress.

The Constitution has also been criticised for its historical compromises, such as the three-fifths compromise in Article I, Section 2, the fugitive slave law in Article IV, Section 2, and the moratorium on banning the slave trade until 1808 in Article V. These compromises, along with the absence of the words "slave" and "slavery" in the document, have been interpreted as indications of the Constitution's inherent flaws regarding slavery and racial equality.

Additionally, critics have argued that the Constitution is silent on issues of gender equality and women's rights. While the language used in the Constitution can be interpreted as gender-neutral, it was not the original intent of the Founding Fathers to include women in the political process.

In conclusion, the criticism that the Constitution fails to hold the president accountable stems from a range of issues, including the challenging process of removing incompetent leaders, the potential for overburdening the office, and a lack of oversight mechanisms. These criticisms highlight the need for reforms that address the balance of powers and provide greater accountability for the US presidency.

Frequently asked questions