Analysis of the Shortcomings of The U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is one of the longest standing constitutions in the world. It has been long revered as the blueprint for other countries to mold their constitutions after. Although infamous and trailblazing, this document is, after all, 229 years old. As the world has changed dramatically over the last two centuries, our framework for this great republic has not.

Often given the misnomer of a living document, our constitution was created in a way to make nearly any controversial change almost impossible, by requiring widespread approval over a very different population. This “living document” is barely holding on to its last breath, being brought back to life once every so often to drudgingly add an amendment which is well past due. Over the 229-year history of the U.S. Constitution, it has only been amended twenty-seven times, ten of these coming in the Bill of Rights passed shortly after the Constitution was created in 1787. So few changes have occurred because of the incredibly difficult process of amending the document.

Article V of the United States Constitution states that the process of an amendment approval requires that to complete the proposal stage, to two thirds of both Houses of Congress approve the amendment, or it must be proposed by a national convention from Congress after being requested by two-thirds of state legislatures. Since 1789, over 11,500 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been proposed, but only 33 have been made it past this phase. After the proposal phase, the amendment must be ratified by either three-fourths of all US state legislatures or state conventions held in three-fourths of US states. Because of the Constitution’s fantastic difficulty to amend, the United States has fallen behind in many vital areas of our ever-changing, increasingly competitive world. Therefore, I believe there is a valid case for redrafting the outdated United States Constitution.

When creating a constitution, there are many important factors to consider. Haim H. Cohn, Professor of Human Right at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in his essay “What Belongs in a Constitution”, expounds upon his claim that regime arrangements, human rights, and general credo are the main factors that should be in constitutions. One thing that I really agree on with the author is the addition of some law-protecting human rights. One very important aspect of the U.S. Constitution is that it uses a lot of vague wording that can leave a lot to be interpreted. Although this has had some benefits with making necessary changes quickly, I do not believe this loose wording belongs in a Bill of Rights. Over US History, past generations have used these loose wordings to wrongly interpret laws that suppress human rights for those that a given administration or society deems inferior. Unethical administrations can rise to power and exploit these ambiguities. I believe that strong, concise, detailed human rights protections are necessary for true declaration of the credo the government serves to protect.

The United States Bill of Rights employs this ambiguity, which allowed previous interpretations to strip human rights from African Americans, immigrants, women, homosexual people and many more. Some might argue with our global understanding of human rights in 2019, but time and time again, governments have found loopholes to violate these rights. To avoid further injustice, I believe the U.S. Constitution needs a detailed, rigid, inclusive Bill of Rights protecting all human rights for all people. I do however recognize the necessity for ambiguity in the constitution in other areas allowing this framework to be flexible and work as the times change.

Since 1787, many countries have undergone constitutional processes, creating unique documents with new entailments. As these ideas have gained popularity, many other countries have followed suit, creating a new status quo for the role of government. The U.S. Constitution, once the model for almost all constitutions, has fallen behind on the ever-changing role of government. One major reason for the United States decline in these constitutional advancements is the incredibly difficult process of amending the Constitution mentioned in the first paragraph. Many citizens are now calling for change in light of these global developments, some of which are at odds with constitutional intent back in 1787.

One of these “revolutionary” ideas is the right to universal health care. This progressive idea is already a reality for most developed countries in the world. Of the 36 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States is the only country that doesn’t provide health care to its citizens. Not only can an argument be made that it a right to health care is entirely humane and ethically necessary but amending a right to health care can greatly improve health and the quality of life in the United States. According to 2018 data from the World Health Organization, Israel, Italy, Spain, Australia, France and Norway (all countries with a right to health care) have an average life expectancy that is five years longer than that in the United States. For these reasons, a right to health insurance is a necessary amendment that has sparked a discussion about the efficacy of the Constitution in modern time.

The right to education is another widely embraced constitutional guarantee that the United States Constitution fails to protect. As our technology and sciences evolve, our dependence on these innovations has skyrocketed. In order to stay competitive in the global marketplace, continuing to raise educational standards is crucial. Once a nation renowned for its stellar education and emphasis on learning, the United States has quickly fallen behind other nations. In a 2013 The Atlantic article by Stephen Lurie, Lurie discusses the results of an international report that ranks various countries education systems. He notes that “the report’s latest edition, in 2012, the United States education system sits at 17th place out of 40 countries” (Lurie).

The author goes on to make an important observation that “Every country that bests us in the education rankings either has a constitutional guarantee to education or does not have a constitution but has ensured the right through an independent statute.” Some argue that education is a responsibility left to individual states through the tenth amendment and is already addressed in the Bill of Rights. But as evident by our dismal performance in recent years, a comprehensive constitutional amendment securing the right to education and setting a culture of high academic standards is indispensable to the future success of America.

A third reason that many citizens have been calling for constitutional reconstruction is the outdated system of electing representatives and the electoral college. In recent presidential elections, it has become clear that receiving the most total votes does not always secure you a victory. The electoral college, which was established back in 1787 in Article II of the constitution, was created by the founders with the intent of creating a safety net for the Presidential office. Back in 1787, a large portion of the U.S. population was uneducated and illiterate. To prevent an unworthy candidate from becoming elected by uninformed voters, the electoral college, depending on the state’s elector policies, allows electors the ability to vote for whichever candidate they see fit. This process creates a fallacy of popular sovereignty but is very much controlled by the electors.

As times have changed, population education and availability of candidate platforms has turned America in to a very informed voting country. Since the general population is now educated to a point to make an informed ballot on their own, it is definitely time to rid this electoral college system and establish a true democratic election for representative government. Much like the electoral college, current congressional elections are a fallacy of democracy as well. Michelle Goldberg, in her New York Times article about the problems with our constitutions election process, claims that “A combination of gerrymandering and the tight clustering of Democrats in urban areas means that even if Democrats get significantly more overall votes than Republicans in the midterms — which polls show is probable — they may not take back the House of Representatives. According to a Brookings Institution analysis, in 2016, Republicans won 55.2 percent of seats with just under 50 percent of votes cast for Congress.” (Goldberg). The reality expressed in this quote is extremely troubling and aptly represents a reason for great frustration shared by many with the U.S. Constitution.

The ideas expressed in this essay are only a select few of the many shortcomings of our U.S. Constitution. In a 2012 New York Times article by Adam Liptak, the author includes a quote from one of the most infamous framers of the U.S. Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, saying “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” (Liptak).

This quote speaks dividends to the intended lifespan of the document in question. When the creators of the document forged this document to be replaced every 19 years, and we are still using this framework 229 years later, it is no surprise that people are asking for change. The ambiguous Bill of Rights, no right to health care, no right to education and an outdated and unfair election system are a few of the prime reasons that the United States Constitution is outdated and needs to evolve, like many other countries already have.