Is the US Constitution flawed?

There are periodic assertions in postings that the US Constitution is flawed or somehow inferior to others. I have previously asked multiple times, of those that believe that, what specifically are the issues, problems, and flaws and what would it be advocated should be changed?

 

That it did not include a couple things, one a clause forbidding officials to declare a crisis and just act as though it no longer has any meaning. Two that it did not make violating an elected officials oath, an immidiately removable, offense.

 

Nothing is perfect. The Constitution has been amended several times, that is one reason why it's held up so well

 

Not enough dang positive rights and it’s outdated. It needs to be seriously reworked.

 

There are some flaws in the Constitution. Nothing that could not be resolved if people in Congress would check their partisan bickering at the door.. But the main problem is the way it has been distorted by the courts... especially (though not exclusively) in the last 20 years. And personally, I have always held that the way in which the Preamble has been completely disregarded may be one of the main causes.

The main flaw was brought to light this year, when it was shown that a President, with the complicity of a third plus one vote in the Senate, can turn us into a dictatorship. Again: a solvable issue in the long term. But the accumulation of distortions is what might one day render it irrelevant.

 

And you’d advocate what?

 

I'm a fan overall, but it would be weird if the Constitution had no flaws. In fact, it would be a huge warning sign. It obviously started off with some flaws . . . like that whole slavery thing.

 

The primary flaws in U.S. government include 1) lack of term limits all the way down to the middle levels of bureaucracy. There should never EVER be career "Faucis" in our government, and reasonable term limits on the federal judiciary are also overdue, 2) lack of restrictions on conglomerate ownership of companies benefiting from press protections and restrictions from back and forth between government, lobbying and "the press" and nepotism therein. 3) maybe most importantly, a too "democratic" voting franchise that allows people who do not pay taxes or very little of them in favor of absurd, bloated pensions, to vote themselves more taxpayer funds. No one who is a government employee, material government contractor, government grantee, non income taxpayer, dependent welfare recipient, should be allowed to vote in applicable elections.

As to whether those problems are Constitutional or not is debatable, some obviously are. The Framers should have foreseen a permanent bureaucrat/government worker class and done more to stifle the damage that has grown into gigantic, festering tumors today.

 

oh, and what "positive rights" would you like to see instituted? the right to raid your neighbor's larder whenever you're feeling a bit peckish? the right to a home built and paid for by your neighbor? perhaps you'd just like the right to diddle your neighbor's teenage daughter whenever you're in the mood.

 

It was written that way to make the removal of a president difficult. Not just a whim by the opposing party.

 

It’s as close to a perfected thesis for freedom and liberty as will
Probably ever be conceived by fallible human beings

 

I’d just like the right for the government to protect minorities and consider them a protected class. But that’s me.

 

I wouldn't say the US Constitution is inferior to any others, it just has the inevitable flaws and limitations of any prescriptive written constitution. Equally, it means the US doesn't have the flaws and limitations of not having a written constitution.

In my experience, the main US-specific issue is the common attitude to the US Constitution, giving it far too much credit just for existing and spinning out lots of very specific interpretations, pushing for those interpretations to be applied literally and unconditionally, regardless of how impractical, harmful or literally impossible that might be. "It's unconstitutional" is often used to (try to) end a debate dead when it should be the start of one.

 

very dangerous thinking.

 

Wasn't it Franklin that said something to the effect"our republic was designed for a "moral people" and would fail without"? The Constitution hasn't change as much as our morals have. In fact, today in America, most don't even want to define morals.....whose moral, yours? mine? It's called moral relativity and we seem to reject the responsibility to hold to that in favor of some kind of so called, "abstract freedom". Rules are twisted,lawyers are in abundance, the judicial wants to legislate from the bench, the FBI becomes a political weapon, little restraint is shown from all government levels.. Interpretations of what government should be and a desire to model ourselves after foreign experiments seems to become the rule. I believe the chaos comes from the new rejection to the fact "there is a God in heaven that involves Him/her self in the affairs of men/women.

 

I agree with you. Perhaps it is entirely impossible to rein in the deceptive human heart through "law". Think that was part of the message of Jesus Christ. We almost seem to prefer "lawyers".

 

Outdated? Reworked???Amended, maybe but it is as fresh and relevant as the day it was written. I think we need an amendment that prohibits tinkering with it for political purposes.

 

Only the people that want some unfair political advantage whine about the Constitution. Leave it alone.

IMO the founding fathers that wrote the Constitution were some of the most brilliant men the country has ever produced!!!!!

 

The problem with the CON, as I see it, it we expected folks to adhere, to those traditions and mores, that are protected by tradition and mores. When Trump acts stupid, or ignorant of them, he can bullsdoze, and his folks don't hold him to account. He has done what would be impossible, if we had a decent, honorable pres.

 

They were. They were also flawed. Which is why they understood that the Constitution should not be "left alone" and allowed for amendments. If we had just left the Constitution alone, as is, we'd still have slavery. Women wouldn't be able to vote. We'd have no Bill of Rights.

 

Why?

The senate gives small states disproportionate power to its population because we vote for senators instead of states assigning it.

 

That would be complete nonsense. Everyone would just claim that any amendment they don't like is "political." Take a look at all of the amendments we've already had. They were all "political" in some way.

 

I'm afraid I don't have specifics to offer, but I would like to address the general question - is the Constitution flawed. My thoughts are yes. As they would be about any document written over 200 years ago. It contains brilliance, to be sure. It has served the country very well all this time. But as we've seen with amendments over the years, it's relevance needs checking from time to time.

But the bigger commentary I would like to make is that those who see flaws are not suggesting that it is a terrible document. Or, by extension, that the country is a terrible one. In order to be great, one needs gut checks on a regular basis. One needs to question themselves - to see how they can be better. It would seem that anyone criticizing the Constitution is regarded as unpatriotic by many - and I disagree. It is patriotic to question the country from time to time. To look at the laws of the land and check their relevance to our society as it exists today - versus 200 years ago.

 

Absolutely true. And I think admitting this fact is actually not a criticism of the Constitution, but a testament to its genius -- this is why they planned for amendments from the beginning.

In fact, I don't think you can claim to support the Constitution unless you make an admission like the one above. To deny it would be to deny the need for amendments and to deny the need for past amendments . . . which are now part of the Constitution. You can't claim that the Constitution never needs to be changed when the Constitution you claim never needs to be changed . . . has been changed.

 

Right but the house is set up to represent population size. Hence why we have two chambers set up differently. To only have one or the other would become a serious problem.