How relevant is the Constitution?

The question of the Constitution’s relevance could hardly be more prescient given the considerable strain placed upon it by the policies implemented by the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Those who would claim that the Constitution remains relevant have several persuasive arguments to offer. Of these, perhaps the most convincing is that the text is continually interpreted in a flexible manner in order to reflect changes within society. As such, it remains as relevant today as it has always been.

                Secondly, the Constitution has to a considerable extent upheld the rights and liberties of the American people. There is surely no group within society that has not benefited at some point from a judgment made by the Supreme Court on the basis of constitutional rights. In addition, the Court’s powers of judicial review have helped to curtail the abuse of power by members of both the legislature and the executive. In a very real sense, the Constitution succeeds in meeting the objectives of the founding fathers in terms of limiting the power of politicians. As James Madison said “all men having power ought to be mistrusted,” and “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

 

                Another point to consider is that the United States has avoided the constant need for change that has undermined constitutions in many other countries. Unlike France or Brazil, the United States has never had to instigate a new Constitution. Instead, the Constitution has evolved over time to accommodate events ranging from the Civil War to the clash of civilizations (Huntingdon, 2002). Indeed, it is perhaps telling to note that newly-independent countries have often adopted a codified constitution with many of the features of the American system. Finally, the American Constitution has upheld a federalist structure in which some level of compromise between the national and state level is required.

As with any area of political debate, there are counter-arguments to consider. To begin with, the Constitution may in part be blamed for legislative-executive deadlock. The emphasis upon democracy is such that effective governance can be very difficult to achieve. Secondly, the Constitution fails to protect rights with sufficient force. As such, the relevance of the Constitution has been eclipsed in the modern era. For instance, the Supreme Court declared that Gitmo was unconstitutional back in 2006 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. However, the detention center remains open because the judicial branch has no means of enforcement. Constitutional rights have therefore been placed to the margins whilst the two main parties fail to generate sufficient political will to close such an obvious violation of human rights. Finally, one could argue that the amendment process is needlessly complex and thereby serves to prevent reasonable and much-needed constitutional change. As a result, the Constitution becomes fossilized and thereby irrelevant to the needs of contemporary society. This argument is more commonly associated with progressive voices within the states.

 

In seeking a balanced conclusion to this question, it should be recognized that no system is entirely perfect. On the plus side, the Constitution has weathered several storms throughout the history of the states and still remained revered amongst the American people. It should also be noted that the aims of the founding fathers have for the most part been upheld; particularly in terms of preventing the tyranny of the majority. However, the Constitution can at times appear stuck in the past (as critics of the second amendment claim). The Constitution has also failed to offer sufficient protection for the rights of those accused of terrorist crimes during the war against terror (principally those derived from the fourth to the eighth amendment). Moreover, the founding fathers would doubtless be disappointed at the ability of politicians to circumvent the Constitution.