Failures Of The Constitution Pros And Cons

Elijah Martinez

Comparative Government 103

Mr. John Vento

March 21, 2017

The Failures of the U.S. Constitution

Indeed, more than two centuries of experience demonstrates that... the Framers Were Wrong, they will change the constitution. Even if the Framers did not intend their constitution to abolish slavery, when later generations concluded that slavery could no longer be tolerated and must be abolished, they changed the constitution to conform with their belief.

-Rober Dahl, How Democratic is the American Constitution?

The Constitution is the most sacred document the United States has; it profoundly affects how we run our government and how we view our democracy. If the people believe the government is not running well and the issue

This was because of the electoral college- Clinton won the popular vote because of the vast number of residents living in California who overwhelmingly voted for her. However, the electoral college, as expressed in the constitution, would have it that citizens of smaller states hold greater power in voting than do citizens of larger states. In an article published by the Washington Post, it’s noted “...each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote... if you average the 10 most populous states... to those of the 10 least populous states, you get a ratio of 1 to 2.5.” This, as the article argues, distorts the true views of the people, as the smaller states citizens’ votes will have greater value than an American at the unfortunate end. This does not reflect and does not incorporate democratic elements crucial to the overall average voter, as his or her vote may just count for less. Under the constitution, to propose an amendment, there is a requirement of two-third votes by the House of Representatives and Senators. After this, there is the ratification by the legislatures. Considering all of this, it would seem highly unlikely that the requested amount of states needed to ratify such an amendment would be inclined to place themselves in an inferior circumstance. This amendment would

On one hand, judicial review is related to judicial legislation. This is illustrated by the judiciary having not only the authority to interpret the constitution, but the ability to add laws when interpreting and deciding cases brought before them. The judiciary oversteps its jurisdiction, democratically speaking, because if is not of an elected body. It holds the power to consider laws enacted by elected officials of Congress and the President unconstitutional, while they are not in direct election by the people and are not seen as legitimate. As Robert Dahl has stated, “...contradiction remains between imbuing an unelected body... with the power to make policy decisions that affect the lives and welfare of millions of Americans.” The response to this issue would be implementing a judicial selection system like assisted appointment which is also known as Merit Selection and the Missouri Plan. This method holds a commission to review the qualification of the nominated judges and then sends the approved judges to the governor (President) who then selects one. The judge is to serve one term (a decade-long term) and then be subjected to a retention referendum. This would solve the of the judicial review not being democratic. In fact, it would be even more democratic as it would allow the people to decide whether or not they would want to keep the judge. The judges typically serve 26 years, so will this is a