The Us Constitution: Flaws And All

The US Constitution has been criticised for its treatment of race, its failure to guarantee fundamental rights, and its inability to adapt to changing circumstances. The Constitution has been described as undemocratic and ineffective, with some arguing that it has contributed to political polarisation and economic inequality. The power of the executive branch has been a particular point of contention, with critics arguing that it has become too powerful and unaccountable, verging on presidential dictatorship. The original Constitution has also been criticised for its weak central government, lack of an executive official or judicial branch, and the difficulty of amending the document. Some have argued that the Constitution is in need of reform or even replacement to address these issues and adapt to modern challenges.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Legal Guide for Police

$35.56 $56.99

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison (Modern Library Classics)

$12.95 $22

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

Legal Guide for Police: Constitutional Issues

$31.86 $54.95

The US Constitution is undemocratic and ineffective

The US Constitution has been criticised as being undemocratic and ineffective. Sanford Levinson, Professor of Law at the University of Texas, argues that the Constitution is the root cause of America's political troubles. One of the main issues is the concentration of power in the Executive branch, which has led to an unaccountable "presidential dictatorship". This has been exacerbated by the political polarisation caused by the two-party system, which has resulted in gridlock and prevented effective governance.

Furthermore, the US Constitution has been criticised for its failure to address racial injustice adequately. Harvard Law Professor Alan Jenkins has argued that the Constitution has historically been used to uphold racial discrimination and that lawyers and legal scholars need to understand the role that race has played in its development. This understanding is essential to interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that it upholds human rights and equality.

The US Constitution has also faced criticism for its inability to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, the Articles of Confederation, the first American constitution, were difficult to amend as they required unanimous consent from all 13 states. This made it challenging to address issues such as states' independent foreign policies and currency systems, which created difficulties in trade.

Additionally, the US Constitution has been accused of failing to provide adequate safeguards against corrupt or insurrectionist government officials. The concentration of power in the Executive branch and the political polarisation of the two-party system have contributed to this issue. As a result, the Constitution has been unable to prevent events such as the January 6 uprising and the government's ineffective response to the pandemic.

Overall, while the US Constitution has been amended and improved over time, it continues to face criticism for its undemocratic and ineffective nature, contributing to political polarisation and failing to address racial injustice and adapt to changing circumstances. These issues have led to calls for a new constitutional convention to address these problems and improve democratic governance.

It has failed to address racial injustice

The US Constitution has been criticised for its failure to address racial injustice. While the founding documents of the US articulated the ideals of freedom and equality, they also institutionalised slavery and facilitated policies of genocide towards Native Americans. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were designed to end racial subordination and supremacy, but critics argue that the US Constitution still falls short in addressing racial injustice.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Jenkins has discussed the treatment of race in the US Constitution and how to guarantee fundamental rights. He argues that the US Constitution and laws can be instruments of racial discrimination and oppression, as well as tools for advancing freedom and equality. The substance of the laws matters, and there is much to be learned from innovative policies and legal strategies that promote health equity and racial justice at the state, tribal, and local levels.

The US Supreme Court has been criticised for its role in strengthening systems of oppression. In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the Court asserted that Black people, whether enslaved or free, were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". The Court also declared indigenous people "savages" unworthy of retaining their ancestral lands. During World War II, the US government interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps, an atrocity upheld by the Supreme Court in the Korematsu case.

The US Constitution's approach to racial justice has been described as paradoxical. While it guarantees equality of opportunity, critics argue that it fails to address the systemic disadvantages faced by historically marginalized groups. This has led to a "pericious movement" that seeks to transform America's promise of equal opportunity into a divisive pursuit of predetermined outcomes based on irrelevant immutable characteristics. Critics argue that a colourblind society, as envisioned by the Constitution, undermines efforts to address racial injustice and leads to a form of "race-based favoritism".

To address these issues, some have suggested appointing justices committed to upholding human rights and equality and interpreting the Constitution in a way that recognises the historical context of racial discrimination and the need to advance equity for historically disadvantaged groups. This approach, known as Critical Race Theory, aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the Constitution and laws by acknowledging the role that race and racial discrimination have played in their development.

It has allowed for political polarisation

The US Constitution has been criticised for its role in enabling political polarisation. The Executive branch has been criticised for becoming too powerful and unaccountable, with Professor Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas arguing that it verges on a "presidential dictatorship". The Trump administration has been described as "corrupt" and representative of the "final unravelling" of the Constitution.

The US Constitution has also been criticised for its failure to address issues of human rights and equality. Harvard Law Professor Alan Jenkins argues that the system has been manipulated to put in place justices who are hostile to fundamental human rights. This has resulted in a disabling gridlock that prevents the government from tackling national issues.

The US Constitution's inability to adapt to changing demographics has also been a contributing factor to political polarisation. With an increasing urban population, the current system may result in 70% of the US population being represented by only 30% of senators. This discrepancy can lead to political tensions and a sense of unfair representation.

Furthermore, the US Constitution has been criticised for its failure to address issues of racial injustice. Critical Race Theory argues that students of the law must understand the historical context of racial discrimination and its role in shaping the Constitution. By ignoring these uncomfortable truths, the Constitution contributes to racial inequality and political polarisation.

While some scholars argue for a completely new constitution, others believe that amendments can be made to improve the current system. For example, South Africa's constitution explicitly allows for laws that address racial discrimination and advance equity for disadvantaged groups. A similar approach in the US could help mitigate issues of racial injustice and political polarisation.

Explore related products

Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787

$18 $18

CrunchTime for Contstitutional Law (Emanuel CrunchTime Series)

$34.22 $59.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$245.32 $359

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)

$6.92 $8.95

Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$199 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

It has enabled an unaccountable executive branch

The US Constitution divides the federal government into three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. This was intended to ensure that no individual or group would have too much power. However, the Constitution has been criticised for enabling an unaccountable executive branch, with the President at its head.

Article II of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch of the federal government. It vests federal executive power in the President, who is given the authority to enforce laws and appoint agents to carry out this enforcement. The President also has the distinct authority over foreign affairs and is the only person with the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. The Supreme Court has also recognised that the Constitution grants the President certain implied authorities, such as the ability to supervise and remove executive officials.

The President's power to appoint executive officials has been criticised as enabling an unaccountable executive branch. For example, Cabinet members, who serve as advisors to the President, are nominated by the President and must be approved by the Senate. This includes the heads of executive departments and other high-ranking government officials. The President also nominates heads of federal agencies and high court appointees, who are then confirmed or rejected by Congress. This gives the President significant influence over the composition of the executive and judicial branches, potentially leading to a lack of accountability and an imbalance of power.

Furthermore, while Congress can remove the President from office in exceptional circumstances, the process of impeachment is complex and rarely successful, further contributing to the perception of an unaccountable executive branch.

Additionally, the Constitution's failure to adequately address issues of race and racial discrimination has been criticised as enabling an unaccountable executive branch. Harvard Law Professor Alan Jenkins has argued that the original Constitution was "brilliant and highly flawed", and that understanding the role of race and racial discrimination in the development of the Constitution is crucial to understanding its full context and implications. The lack of explicit provisions to address racial discrimination and advance equality has been contrasted with South Africa's constitution, which explicitly allows for laws aimed at redressing historical injustices.

It has led to a weak central government

The US Constitution has been criticised for leading to a weak central government. This was a key issue with the Articles of Confederation, which formed a "perpetual union" of states but provided few central powers. The Articles Congress had just one chamber, with each state holding one vote, reinforcing the power of individual states to act independently.

The central government lacked the authority to regulate commerce, making it unable to standardise trade between states and foreign nations. It also couldn't collect taxes from the states to fund its operations, meaning it was unable to maintain an effective military or back its own currency. The government was reliant on voluntary efforts from the states to send tax money, and the states rarely complied with Congress's requests.

The Articles required a supermajority of nine out of thirteen states to pass any laws, making it difficult to pass legislation affecting all states. The document was also practically impossible to amend, as it required unanimous consent from all thirteen states. This meant that the central government lacked the power to enforce its role as the sole conductor of foreign policy, and states often conducted their own foreign policies and had their own money systems.

The Constitution was designed to address these issues, establishing a federal government with more specific powers, including the ability to regulate trade and conduct foreign relations. However, Americans continue to disagree over how much power to grant the national government, with Federalists supporting a strong central government and Anti-Federalists arguing for stronger state governments. The Constitution's establishment of a system of federalism, with powers divided between national and state governments, reflects these ongoing debates.

Frequently asked questions