Should the United States Rewrite its Constitution?

The Icelandic government is rewriting its constitution, and has turned to popular social networking site, Facebook, in an effort to garner the input of the Icelandic citizens.  Iceland, which gained independence from Denmark in 1944, never drafted an original constitution.  It merely adopted the Danish constitution and made minor revisions. But after the financial crisis of 2008, during which commercial banks in Iceland collapsed within a week, the government decided it was high time to do so.    

Of course, it was only hours after this news hit the international press that the inevitable question popped up on U.S. blogs and news websites:  Should the United States rewrite its Constitution?

I’m going to make no mistake about the intensity and magnitude of my next few words.

Absolutely not!

I know there are hundreds—or maybe thousands—of so called liberals throughout this country, who would shudder at these words—their perspective being that it would give us the opportunity to correct the fundamental deficiencies in the original Constitution. 

In theory, I agree with this proposition.  In actuality, I shudder at the possibility of putting into the hands of U.S. lawmakers, such an immense responsibility.  I mean, we see what a mess they made out of the healthcare bill!

Beyond this game of partisan politics, however, lies a much deeper concern.  I understand that when the Constitution was initially drafted, Black Americans were not even considered to be persons; and that the bias against women, Native-Americans, and Black Americans was rampant.  But—and I know this may be deeply disturbing to hear—I believe that the biases people hold today go far beyond those few groups that those men that U.S. history refers to as our “forefathers”, discriminated against.  The hatred now extends into sexuality, sexual orientation, immigration status, religion, etc.  The “current drafters” would also have the benefit of hundreds of years of experience to tailor all sorts of exceptions and nuances specifically meant to exclude people—and do things like, ban any state from allowing same-sex marriage under any circumstances or abortion indefinitely.

In other words, I don’t trust it. 

 Perhaps more problematic, with any significant change to the United States Constitution, would come the invalidation of hundreds of years of developed constitutional case law.  Again, some might say “good!” in light of the way the law has been previously interpreted.  I say, however, look at the composition of the current Supreme Court of the United States.  Then ask yourself this—and I say this with all due respect to our justices—Are these the group of people you want analyzing and “clarifying” what your constitutional rights are?

Finally, and I say this, not with judgment, but with genuine sadness: How many people in this country really care about what the Constitution says anyway?  I am willing to bet—again sadly—that if twenty random people on the street were asked what the first three words of the Constitution are, only half of them—if that many—would be able to answer.  (It’s “We the People”, by the way).

I mean, just last month, the Supreme Court issued a decision (Kentucky v. King) which upheld what would have previously been an unlawful, warrantless search of an apartment, because there was a “marijuana odor.”  But who’s talking about this egregious constitutional interpretation?  Where are the up in arms constituents, demanding an explanation for what will certainly lead to endless violations of people’s civil liberties?  They’re nowhere.  So again, I ask:  What is the point in rewriting the Constitution?

I say, keep the original Constitution; toss the old way of thinking.