Is It Time to Ditch the U.S. Constitution?

A law professor at Georgetown University thinks so. What do you think?

Luis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on the last day of 2012 suggesting it was time for the U.S. Constitution to go.

In his op-ed, Sneidman blames the U.S. Constitution for many of our present day problems.

"As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit; our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions," Seidman wrote.

The Constitution, however, set up a way to make changes — through the amendment process. Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School late last year, however, the Second Amendment is one that has come sharply into focus as gun control is hotly debated.

What do you think? Is it time for the U.S. to consider a new constitution in keeping with more current issues — or would that defeat the whole purpose of exactly why the U.S. Constitution was set up in the first place?

Gene R February 05, 2013 at 02:38 PM
Over the last 250 years, the US Constitution has served the country well. America is the leader & envy of the world. Kings, emperors, dictators, presidents-for-life, monarchies, first-among-equals and the like have fostered the idea they can do better. Failed, faltering, weak governments stand in testimony to those with over sized egos who seek to remove the people from the rule of law. Here is an alternate idea that works within the framework of the US Constitution - a politician can only serve for a single term AND a balanced budget amendment is added to the constitution. Special interest influence is marginalized, political will to demonstrate governance is driven by short time-in-office. A balanced budget should be every politicians goal. The halls of academia foster weird ideas from want-to-be social benefactors. The threat to liberty is unimportant as long as it serves the common good. Not said is that the 'common good' is to be defined by academia's intelligentsia or by a benevolent politician. Excuse me, I just went full circle in this treatise, didn't I??
Bob Martell February 05, 2013 at 03:38 PM
Actually Professor Seidman has it exactly backwards. The problem is not "our insistence on obedience to the Constitution". It is our failure to follow the Constitution and the constant efforts to circumvent or otherwise re-define it's provisions that is the root of many of our problems.
jtmcconnell February 05, 2013 at 10:15 PM
The U.S. was the first country to establish a constitution, it it is this constitution that has made our country so stable for our entire existence. We are till the country other nations admire and where immigrants yearn to come. Even with our high debt, other nations want to lend to us because of our stability and long term prospects for economic growth. Although amending our constitution is not easily done, that very fact has contributed to our stability. Even so, when we the people want to change it, we can do it. What nonsense this professor speaks.
Jim Nelems February 05, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Even the professor 's examples show the importance of the constitution. Yes, Jefferson wanted laws to last only 17 years(one generation) but that idea was for obvious reasons not part of the constitution. The real tragedy here is that the professor has been paid for 40 years to teach this drivel. He should be glad he has the constitution to allow free speech, no matter how stupid it is.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »