The constitution IS old. So what?

 Imagine this scenario.

You’re at a party. The battery in your phone has died, forcing you to interact with the other people there. No longer can you stand off to the side, playing angry birds while looking like you are texting someone important.

You survey the scene. Why did you go, you think to yourself. Just then, you see a small clatch of people engaged in vigorous discussion. You wander over there. As you get closer, you get to hear snippets of their conversation.

“I don’t know why people are so obsessed with the constitution. It’s so old.”

“Yeah, I mean why should we listen to what a bunch of old white guys thought about two hundred years ago.”

“They didn’t even have TV back then!”

“It’s irrelevant and out of date. I don’t know why those crazy winguts obsess over it. It doesn’t even guarantee you healthcare, like in Europe.”

“Europe! They’re so progressive.”

They spot you. Collectively turning to you, they ask:

“What do you think?”

This scene has happened thousands of times throughout America, and if you stop reading this blog post, it could happen to you. Read on, and you’ll have a witty, well argued, and original rejoinder to the conversation. However, it might cost you an invitation to a dinner party or two…

I usually give people on the opposite side of the political spectrum the benefit of the doubt. As I think I’ve explained before, no one side or ideology has a monopoly on truth. Listening to opponents’ arguments and understanding the logic behind what they are saying, are essential to a basic level of civility. We don’t do this, of course. It’s much easier to demonize someone you disagree with than concede that they may have a fundamental point.

All of this said, the argument that the constitution is old/irrelevant/racist/obsolete is so dumb, I have difficulty seeing any merit to it. Let’s breakdown these and their related arguments, so that I can show that contrary to popular belief, the constitution is extremely relevant.

The constitution is old.

The constitution is old. So what? The fact that something is old does nothing to limit its validity or enforceability. Yet, listening to some people, you would think that merely pointing out the age of the constitution is the equivalent to making a political point.

Contracts, which the constitution is modeled after, do not expire just because they are old. Imagine if I took out a thirty year loan from you. After twenty years, I stop paying. You come to me and demand your money that I agreed to give you.

“But that contract is twenty years old, man,” I reply.

Is that a legitimate defense? No. Contracts, unless specified, do not expire with age. You can’t agree to do something, and then, after some arbitrary passage of time, refuse to do it. The age of a document has nothing to do with its enforceability. Do you know what else is old? The Civil Rights Act, the nineteenth amendment, the existence of Social Security. All of these things are old, yet I don’t see people suddenly saying that we shouldn’t enforce them just because they are aged laws, and rightfully so.

Imagine what you are arguing for if you state that because the constitution is old, it shouldn’t be enforced. You’re basically arguing that after some undetermined period of time, agreed upon by no one, laws suddenly go out of force. Why pass laws at all, if this is true? Let’s just govern ourselves by dictats that last only as long as the current governing executive is in power. I mean, that’s worked so well for every other tyrannical regime, I’m sure it will work just fine here.

Laws are what separate civilized nations from the barbaric ones. Government by laws implies government by deliberation and wisdom and preclude government by men and whims. Let’s go to the next argument.

The constitution is obsolete/outdated (they didn’t even have TVs!)

This, I think, is the far more common argument. It goes something like this. When the founders created our country, a whole host of technological and social achievements weren’t in existence. The internet, railroads, television, Angry Birds, the refrigerator, birth control, and more weren’t even thought of. Major technological change have forced the constitution into obsolesce. We wouldn’t use a health book from the eighteenth century, so why should we use a constitution from then.

There are two counter arguments against this stupid, daft, unintelligent point.

First, the constitution is not a statement on technological craft. The document was created to a) acknowledge the rights and liberties of the American people and b) set up a structure for the federal government of the states. How does the existence of the internet, or any other technological invention, invalidate any of those things? It’s not like the founders were cavemen, unaware of the possibility that times could change. THEY LIVED THROUGH ONE OF THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY PERIODS IN THE HISTORY OF MAN. Of course they were aware that times, and technology, change. The existence of the United States Patent Office is proof enough for this. They knew that, over time, it may be necessary to tweak the structure of government. Maybe, as it was the case, states have too much power and are running ramp shod over peoples’ right to vote. Maybe there needs to be a new source of income to fight a global war. Whatever the case, the constitution created a process specifically designed to adapt to change. It’s called the amendment process, and it’s been used twenty seven times. The fact that the constitution is flawed in some way, or does not address some newly discovered problem, does not invalidate the entire document. No! You can, with popular consensus, add to the document to bring it up to speed. Amazing!

Second, if the constitution is out of date, I would like someone to point out what specific liberties it acknowledges are now obsolete. What about amendment III? No one even knows what that is.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It’s so old! Except, it’s actually a very important right. That fact that it’s near unthinkable for the government to station troops in our home is a testament to its success. But it’s old. Let’s get rid of it. Let’s let the government forcibly station troops in our home. I mean, protecting one’s house and property is so 18^th century. While we’re at it, let’s get rid of this one.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

That one is pretty old. It’s over 150 years old. That’s seriously out of date. Did they even have ipods back then? Let’s keep going.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

This one is a little more recent, but it’s from the seventies. The seventies! They thought mauve was cool! They thought shaggy carpets were hip! Let’s toss this one.

And so on and so on. Do you see how silly this is? I challenge anyone who says that the constitution is out of debate to go, find a section, and show to me why that no longer matters. Remember, just because you can’t find an obvious reason as to why a part exists, doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason. In reality, when someone says the constitution is obsolete, what they mean is:

There’s this amendment that I don’t like, but because it’s broadly popular and I’m a weasel I’m not going to stand up and say this. Instead, I’ll crouch behind vague and ultimately indecipherable language to make my point.

Let’s go to the final point.

The constitution was written by white men. It’s racist and sexist.

While the previous argument is the most common, I think this point is the most in vogue. Over the past forty years or so, entire departments have taken hold of universities whose only insight is to find something well regarded, call it racist or sexist, and repeat until tenure.

The constitution was written by racist, white men. Why should it hold any currency?

Factually, they’re partially right. White men did in fact write the constitution. I don’t know if they were racist, as I do not know the content of theirs, or any person’s, heart, but I’ll go a step forward. The ideas behind the constitution were developed primarily by white men. Whoa! Should we not listen to what Martin Luther King Jr. said just because he was a black man? No, that’s racist! You’re right. Now apply that same logic elsewhere…

Granted, the constitution was initially flawed because it refused to recognize black men and women of all sort. This is a serious point, and I firmly acknowledge it. The hypocrisy of pronouncing all men as equal while simultaneously defining some men as only worth 3/5 of a person, is morally and factually wrong. I can’t speak as a black person or a woman, but I know that this is severely off-putting, to say the least. Why, if I am a black man, should I hold any fealty to a document that initially refused to even acknowledge me?

This is a serious question. To counter, I would answer that it was through the constitution that liberation, for both blacks and women, occurred. The constitution created a noble and perfect ideal, a republic governed by free citizens, even if in practice it initially failed to live up to that ideal. The spirit behind the constitution is the one that we are constantly striving to reach. The initial failure of the document does not mean that the ideals behind are failures.

The constitution adapted to bring itself in-line with its principles. People struggled for, and ultimately passed, amendments reconciling the wrongs inherent in the original draft of the document. If you are a minority in this country, you should cling to the constitution. Frame it on your walls, because it is only this document and the current social mores that prevent prosecution.

If you made it this far, thank you. There’s a final point I want to make before concluding.

If we throw away the constitution, and decide to govern ourselves based on current societal mores, we run into a huge trap. It is easy to assume that society, and all of us, will continually progress and become better over the long-run. This is a false notion. Nowhere is it written that society will be more free, fair, and humane in the coming years. The constitution, and laws in general, are a bulwark against trends, both good and bad. The document was designed to be somewhat out of step with current times. If we governed ourselves only by what is currently politically popular, we would cease to be a republic, and would instead become a tyranny of the vogue and trendy.