“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” are the first words of the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land. This document, ratified in 1787, was created to outline the general laws of the land and establish a system by which the people can live by. It originally was made up of seven articles, and was later modified with the addition of amendments. And while this 227-year-old Constitution is great in how it has helped shape our nation for today, it also needs work and updating.
In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison and said, “No society can make a perpetual constitution. The Earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead…Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.” Thomas Jefferson meant that the very Constitution he helped write would one day be inapplicable to the society that it was meant for. The 227-year-old U.S. Constitution that still survives today must need to be changed.
One might argue that even though the Constitution seems to have holes in it, it does not, because amendments fill up those holes. However, they do not enough. What it comes down to is that the basic rulings behind the Constitution were meant for 17th century United States, and do not apply to 21st century United States. Major events have changed our country, and the Constitution needs to account for a different set of circumstances that the country is in today which it was not before. It needs a major update.
When Egypt was creating a new government in 2012, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg advised them that she would “not look to the U.S. Constitution, if [she] were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” The problem with the U.S. Constitution is, at the same time, one of its biggest strengths: stability. The U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787 and has guided us for 227 years. However, this stability means that the constitution is outdated and not entirely applicable to modern day society. If the Constitution were to be changed, it would better address the problems in the United States.
One big issue with the Constitution is representation. The United States government tries to get equal representation for all citizens. Through voting, people elect who gets into office. Voting laws have changed, and over time more citizens were given the power to vote (US male citizens, females, minorities, etc). And while these amendments were put into place to edit the Constitution, there are still problems with the voting laws that are inherent to the Constitution. One example is the Senate. Each state has two Senators, no matter the population size from that state. Thus Wyoming, the state with the smallest population of almost 600,000 citizens, has the same amount of Senators as California, the state with the largest population of about 37 million citizens. Thus, there is the same amount of representation for 0.18% of the population as there is for 12% of the population, which shows that representation in the Senate is not equal.
Another issue is the election of the United States President. Citizens vote for “Electors” pledged to one of the tickets, and these ors” will vote for that candidate. Each state has a certain amount of Electors, which is the number of Senators and Representatives added together. For most of the states, when more than 50% of its population votes for a specific candidate’s Electors, that candidate will receive all of the Electoral votes, a “winner-take-all” system. The candidate with the majority of the Electoral votes then becomes President. While the system has been mostly successful, it does not ensure that each citizen is represented equally. For example, North Dakota and South Dakota are both States with just three Electoral votes. However, according to the 2000-2010 U.S. Census, there are approximately 200,000 more people in South Dakota than there are in North Dakota, which means that 800,000 South Dakotans have the same representation in Presidential elections as 600,000 North Dakotans.
Now, those who still believe that the Constitution does not need to be updated may insist that there are ways for equal representation to exist in voting. The House of Representatives was created to mirror the amount of people in each state so that each state has a proportional amount of representation within government. Also, the system of checks and balances allows the Senate and the House of Representatives to theoretically remain equal in power. However, the Senate has powers the House does not, such as the ability to ratify treaties, the potential to appoint federal judges and other execute officials, and the trial of federal officials impeached by the House. Senators also serve a term of six years, while Representatives only serve for two, meaning Senators stay in office for longer and can hold more power per Senator.
In conclusion, “We the People” need to change our own Constitution. We need to update it and adjust it to better fit the needs of the United States and its citizens. This Constitution must be better drawn to account for a different society. No number of amendments could do what changing the Constitution would do to better our nation. “We the People” need a new Constitution “in Order to form a more perfect Union.”
Works Cited
Constitution of the United States. United States Government, n.d. Web. 2 Feb.
2014. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/
constitution_transcript.html>.
Seitz-Wald, Alex. “The U.S. Needs a New Constitution — Here’s How to Write it.”
The Atlantic 2 Nov. 2013: n. pag. Print.
United States Census 2010. U.S. Census Bureau, n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/>.
Hey Jenn.
I like that you raise troubling objections to the discrepancy of voter power between states and pointing out its conflict with the ideal of equal representation for all. Use of evidence was good, especially the Ruth Bader Ginsberg/Egypt bit. You succeed at drawing attention to the absurdity that this document has been only provisionally updated over more than two centuries and entire changes to our lifestyle. Keep your eye for evidence.
I dislike that you don’t do much to link these problems to the “different set of circumstances” that have appeared in modern times, which seems to be essential to your thesis as I am reading it. From here, I would suggest expanding on why the current schemes of representation/election are bad for the country (i.e. why is disproportionately representing smaller states bad) and linking it to difficulties of modern times.
Your argument was very cohesive. The thesis “However, this stability means that the constitution is outdated and not entirely applicable to modern day society. If the Constitution were to be changed, it would better address the problems in the United States” was clear and argumentative. Make sure each sentence is your essay contributes to your argument and flows nicely in your paper. For example, I was confused with the sentence “The US government tries to get equal representation for all its citizens.” what does this mean? how exactly does the US government try to get equal representation for its citizens when the law of the land does not advocate for this?
I really liked the quote you used in the second paragraph, and I think pointing out the flaws in the Constitution in relation to modern society was very effective. It was also really helpful that you provided examples of how the election process is not equally representative, using North and South Dakota. However I think the first three paragraphs provide the same general idea (that the Constitution needs to be updated), so I think somehow combining them would be helpful so that the paragraphs don’t seem redundant. I think it would also be helpful to provide a paragraph of a couple examples towards the end of the essay of how exactly the Constitution should be updated.