Homeworks academic writing service


An argument against the united states constitution being irrelevant in todays america

Law professor Mike Seidman argues that it's time to reexamine the role of the Constitution.

In a piece in The New York Times, Georgetown law professor Mike Seidman argues that our reliance on the document has created a divisive and dysfunctional political system. Seidman, who has taught constitutional law for 40 years, explains why he thinks it's time to reexamine the role the document plays in American society. Interview Highlights On why the Constitution is no longer relevant "The people who wrote the Constitution lived in a small rural country, huddled along the Eastern Seaboard — a large part of which was financed by slave labor.

  1. The Constitution requires a very strong supermajority; an entrenched minority can prevent it from happening. But Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman says that adherence to the Constitution is both misguided and long out of date.
  2. Would it actually prevent violence?
  3. Throughout his life, he expressed real doubt about allowing one generation to rule another. But if we look at the most important Supreme Court decisions over the last century or so—things like Brown v.

Many of them believed that it was OK to own other human beings. Almost all of them believed that women should have no role in public affairs.

The Opinion Page

Almost all of them believed people. Why on earth would anybody think that their decisions ought to bind us now? A says, 'Gee whiz, the president's health care proposal's terrific.

The framers would've liked this. Now, don't get me wrong. This is what I do for a living, so I enjoy doing it. But I don't think it's a particularly good way of talking about whether, for example, Obamacare is good for the nation or not. We need to engage with each other instead of calling each other names.

Op-Ed: We The People Should Throw Out The Constitution

But since the first new state was admitted to the Union in 1791, we've just disregarded that provision. One senator from new states has always served less than six years so as to allow for staggered election of senators.

Should the Constitution Be Scrapped?

There was a back row member of the Senate when Alaska was being considered as a new state, who gave a speech. He said, wait a second, we can't do this, this is unconstitutional. And the floor manager of the bill said, shut up and be seated. I think it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Accessibility Navigation

Last time I looked, God and his mighty wrath has not rained thunderbolts down on us because of that. Life seems to be going on more or less as normal, and we're the better for it.

  1. When the framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, the call from the Congress was to amend the Articles of Confederation [the governing document adopted in 1783 upon the end of the Revolutionary War.
  2. Are you arguing that the process should just be self-policing, without any underlying rules or regulations? Important decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on issues like abortion, the rights of gay men and lesbians, and affirmative action, have virtually nothing to do with the Constitution.
  3. He said, wait a second, we can't do this, this is unconstitutional. It would improve deliberation and rhetoric about issues that divide us—gun control, for example.
  4. Many of the most important drafters of the Constitution, including Madison, owned other human beings. There was a back row member of the Senate when Alaska was being considered as a new state, who gave a speech.
  5. What should its place be? In any event, it is very unlikely that our current divisions of power would be changed dramatically and quickly if there were no constitutional obligation.

If there's even a very small minority that's entrenched and determined.