Malcolm Rivera
The U.S. Constitution is often shielded from criticism due to its revered status, but the left critiques this culture of constitutional veneration as abstract and technical, divorced from the moral and material concerns of Americans. This critique highlights how the current constitutional rules favour right-wing agendas and hinder progressive change. The left advocates for a democratic infrastructure that champions criminal justice reform, women's reproductive rights, and interprets the Constitution as guaranteeing all Americans rights to food, shelter, medical care, and education. Progressives argue for a contextualised interpretation of the Constitution, addressing flaws in American democracy, such as racial discrimination, and promoting equality. Solid Liberals, the Next Generation Left, and the Faith and Family Left express strong support for government regulation and progressive values, shaping their views on the Constitution and the nation's future.
Explore related products
$25.44 $25.99
What You'll Learn
- The Constitution should be interpreted to achieve equality
- The Constitution should give all Americans the right to food, shelter, medical care, and education
- The Constitution should be amended to include women's reproductive rights
- The Constitution should be used to address racial discrimination that undermines equality in voting
- The Constitution should be criticised despite its revered status
The Constitution should be interpreted to achieve equality
The Constitution of the United States has long been a revered document, but it is not without its flaws. The left's view of the Constitution is that it should be interpreted to achieve equality, and this requires a break from the culture of constitutional veneration. This is because the current rules of the constitutional game heavily influence what issues are debated and what policy outcomes result.
The Supreme Court has ruled that all racial discrimination is constitutionally suspect, and this includes discrimination against not only blacks but also whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans. The broad wording of the Equal Protection Clause has sparked an ongoing debate about whether it is unconstitutional for governments to consider the race of certain groups as a positive factor in university admissions, employment, and government contracting.
To achieve this equality, activists need to consider the type of majority coalition that can authorize such change. This includes thinking about how to counter initiatives from the right, such as the Convention of States, which seeks to use a constitutional convention to lock in right-wing ends.
Who Holds the White House's Voice?
You may want to see also
The Constitution should give all Americans the right to food, shelter, medical care, and education
The American Constitution is a revered document, but it has its shortcomings. The left's view of the Constitution is that it needs to change to reflect the material and moral concerns of Americans. This includes the belief that the Constitution should give all Americans the right to food, shelter, medical care, and education.
The welfare clause in the Preamble to the US Constitution authorizes Congress to distribute entitlements and redistribute wealth. This has been interpreted as a potential basis for the government to provide universal healthcare and other welfare services. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, warned that this could lead to an indefinite government, subject to particular exceptions, and that it could create government dependency. However, supporters of government-provided healthcare argue that it is a basic human right, alongside the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
The French statesman, Frederic Bastiat, argued that laws should safeguard people's rights to life, liberty, and property, and that imposing regulations on labor and education infringes on individual freedom. On the other hand, the left argues that the current rules of the constitutional game place a thumb on the scale, favoring certain issues and policy outcomes over others. They believe that meaningful change cannot be separated from altering the democratic infrastructure of the country.
Solid Liberals, the Next Generation Left, and the Faith and Family Left are groups that strongly support government regulation of business and believe it is necessary to protect the public interest. These groups are also less likely to express anger with the government, indicating a certain level of trust in state institutions. They view the ability to change as a key factor in the nation's success, which suggests an openness to constitutional amendments that would enshrine rights to food, shelter, medical care, and education.
Activists on the left need to consider the type of majority coalition that can authorize such changes to the Constitution. They must also contend with the legal-political structures that have allowed right-wing judges to protect figures like Trump from criminal consequences. Overall, the left's view is that the Constitution should be a living document that adapts to the needs and values of Americans, including the provision of basic needs such as food, shelter, medical care, and education.
Interpreting the Constitution: A Modern Lens
You may want to see also
The Constitution should be amended to include women's reproductive rights
The Constitution of the United States has long been a revered document, but it is not without its shortcomings. One of the most significant issues it faces is its lack of explicit protection for women's reproductive rights. While the 19th Amendment, passed in 1920, granted women the right to vote, there is still much to be done to ensure that women have equal rights and protections under the law.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and guarantee women equal rights with men. First introduced in Congress in 1923 by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, the ERA gained increasing support with the rise of the women's movement in the 1960s. It was reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971 and approved by the House of Representatives that year and the Senate in 1972. Despite this progress, the ERA has not yet become part of the Constitution, and its ratification status remains debated.
The text of the proposed amendment is clear and concise: "No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to its jurisdiction." This amendment would ensure that women's reproductive rights are protected under the Constitution, providing a legal framework to challenge any discriminatory laws or policies that restrict women's access to reproductive healthcare.
In addition to federal protection, some states have taken steps to guarantee women's equality under the law. For example, the New York State Constitution states, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." Similar provisions have been added to the constitutions of Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. These state-level amendments demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that women's rights are respected and protected.
Amending the Constitution to include women's reproductive rights is a crucial step towards achieving true equality for women in the United States. By guaranteeing their reproductive rights, women will have the autonomy and protection they deserve, ensuring that their voices are heard and their choices respected. This amendment would be a powerful statement of the country's commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms of all its citizens, regardless of gender.
Weapons and the US Constitution: What's Allowed?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution should be used to address racial discrimination that undermines equality in voting
The Constitution of the United States has long been a revered document, shielded from criticism despite its shortcomings. However, the left must break from this culture of constitutional veneration and address its many flaws, particularly regarding racial discrimination in voting.
The Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment, guarantees equal protection under the law and prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly bars race discrimination in voter laws, and the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that state laws cannot discriminate against people of colour. Despite these protections, racial discrimination in voting has persisted in the United States, often through discriminatory voting practices and procedures.
One example is the "Jim Crow" laws enacted by the Democratic Party in the Southern United States from 1890 to 1910, which raised barriers to voter registration, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, disproportionately affecting black voters and poor whites. The Democratic Party also instituted a rule that only whites could vote in its primary elections, which was upheld by the Court in Grovey v. Townsend (1935). However, in United States v. Classic (1941), the Court ruled that primary elections were an essential part of the electoral process, undermining this previous decision.
To address such discrimination, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, using its authority under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, colour, or membership in a language minority group. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act required states and local governments with histories of racial discrimination in voting to submit all changes to their voting laws or practices for federal approval, a process called "preclearance". This significantly increased black voter registration in the South.
Despite these efforts, racial discrimination in voting continues to undermine equality. The Constitution should be used as a tool to address this issue by enforcing the protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and holding states accountable for discriminatory voting practices. This includes challenging gerrymandering of electoral districts and electoral practices that dilute minority voting strength, as well as ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process, regardless of race or language minority status.
In conclusion, the Constitution should be utilised to address racial discrimination in voting, as it provides a framework for ensuring equality at the polls. By upholding and enforcing the relevant amendments, racial discrimination that undermines equality in voting can be effectively tackled, bringing the United States closer to realising its democratic ideals.
Understanding Legal Tender in the United States
You may want to see also
The Constitution should be criticised despite its revered status
The United States Constitution is a revered document, outlining the country's core principles and values. However, despite its esteemed status, the Constitution is not without its flaws and has been criticised by some.
One criticism is that the Constitution, as originally written, protected slavery and did not grant civil rights to women or racial minorities. While amendments have been made to address these issues, the original text's shortcomings highlight the need for ongoing interpretation and adaptation to modern times. Critics argue that a progressive vision of the Constitution is necessary to address serious flaws in American democracy, such as racial discrimination that persists in many states.
Another criticism is directed at the interpretation of the Constitution. Conservatives often advocate for "originalism," claiming that they are faithfully executing the Founding Fathers' intentions. However, liberals argue that constitutional decisions are not just rooted in the document's text but are also influenced by the nation's history and the needs of modern society. They accuse conservatives of using "originalism" as a smokescreen to disguise their rulings as the "true" meaning of the Constitution when they are actually a product of their conservative views. For instance, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court used "originalism" to declare unconstitutional a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, despite there being no explicit requirement in the Constitution itself.
The Constitution has also been criticised for its impact on policy outcomes and democratic infrastructure. The current interpretation of the Constitution can influence which issues are debated and which policies are prioritised. For example, the right-wing has utilised the Constitution to nullify federal decisions and empower state-level Republican officials to reject policies they oppose. This dynamic was evident during periods of intense political conflict, such as Reconstruction, the New Deal, and the civil rights movement, when democratic struggles faced violent resistance from the right, bolstered by the existing constitutional rules.
In conclusion, while the US Constitution holds a revered position, it is not immune to criticism. Critics argue that the Constitution has been used to uphold conservative ideals and hinder progress on issues such as racial equality and democratic reforms. A progressive interpretation of the Constitution is needed to address these flaws and ensure that the document adapts to the needs of a modern society.
The Constitution: Our Country's Foundation and Future
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The left has a range of views about the US Constitution, with some calling for a break from the culture of constitutional veneration and others emphasizing the need to interpret the Constitution in a way that ensures equality and protects the rights of marginalized groups.
One of the main issues is that it does not explicitly guarantee equality, and historically, it protected slavery and lacked civil rights for women and racial minorities.
Left-wing groups want to interpret the Constitution as giving all Americans the right to food, shelter, medical care, and education. They also want to end the death penalty and defend women's reproductive rights.
The left believes that the Supreme Court's decisions are influenced by the values of the justices, who may prioritize their conservative views over the original meaning of the Constitution. They argue for a progressive vision of constitutional law that addresses flaws in American democracy, such as racial discrimination.
The left recognizes the need to build a majority coalition that can authorize democratic change and challenge the legal-political structures that have empowered right-wing judges and officials. They also emphasize the importance of seeing the connection between constitutional rules and the material and moral issues that Americans care about, such as race, the economy, and war.
