The constitution is not sacred

Last updated on: October 12, 2015 at 8:13 pm by Jane the Actuary

The constitution is not sacred 2015-10-12T20:13:03-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Before I start writing, let me just remind you all, and any new readers in particular, that my discussion of some topics and not others is not a reflection on what is or isn’t important, but just what I feel halfway competent writing about. In particular, the situation in Syria (and Germany!) is going from bad to worse quickly, but, so far as I can tell, it is far, far too late for any easy solutions.

But here’s what I was thinking about the other day:

I had asked, in a prior post, whether the ability to own weapons was a human right, rather than simply a benefit provided for in the constitution. And there is a difference between the two; after all, consider all the constitutions which state that the country’s citizens have the right to a university education or to government-provided healthcare or the like, and, on the other hand, foundational documents for other countries which omit any mention of such human rights as freedom of religion or free speech or the like, even though, in fact, those rights are recognized and respected but just not seen as proper material for the constitution.

So imagine if the Second Amendment were simply repealed, or perhaps replaced with a statement that states that the government is able to regulate the ownership of weapons to any degree as the majority deems appropriate, and perhaps some determination of at what level of government (city/state/federal) regulation is permitted. What would our laws look like? What would the majority choose?

Or, on the other hand, if there’s a solid majority in favor of an individual right to bear arms, perhaps limited to such arms as would make sense for self-defense against an individual intruder, then why not amend the constitution to resolve these squabbles?

But we can’t amend the constitution!

Why not?

Some years ago, prior to passing DOMA, there was discussion of a constitutional amendment that would either say, “marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman” or, more likely, “each state shall have the right to define marriage as it chooses; no state shall be compelled by the federal government to change its regulations.” Of course, it never happened, and now we have Obergefell.

Just imagine if there had been an amendment that had said, “nothing in this constitution shall be construed as providing for a right to obtain an abortion” in 1973. Or “a right to assisted suicide” or whatever else someone will dream up that’s not even on our radar in 2015.

But we can’t amend the constitution!

Everyone — well, many people, anyway — recognize that the Electoral College makes no sense. Sure, there are justifications for it, that it forces candidates to campaign in small states, but in 2012 it had the impact of voters in almost the entire country being written off while voters in the “battleground” states had near-constant ads. (Illinois? Never saw a single presidential ad.) But its opponents are trying work-arounds like having individual states choose to allocate their electors proportionate to their ballot results, instead of simply pursuing a constitutional amendment.

But we can’t amend the constitution!

Not to mention that our two-party system of government has its own flaws, compared to multi-party coalition-type governments elsewhere. The fact that we have a president elected separately from Congress, rather than simply being the leader of the winning party/coalition, has good and bad, but is not somehow morally superior to the parliamentary system.

Yes, it’s difficult to amend the Constitution. It requires a supermajority. And in an ideal world, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be running off unearthing new “rights” anyway. But that’s not a reason to treat it as fixed in stone.

The constitution is the document which lays out the basic structure of the government of the United States. The Bill of Rights and various of the subsequent amendments enshrine various human rights. But it is our belief in these human rights, and the right of Americans to govern themselves via representational democracy, that matters. If we turn that into a notion that the Constitution, as currently written, is sacred, and cannot be amended, we are making a serious mistake.

UPDATE: It appears that large numbers of left-wing types have happened on this article, with large numbers of comments accusing me of trying to impose my religion on everyone. Yeah — well, comment away, but please understand that I don’t have the time — or interest, really — to respond to each of these comments.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 7, 2015

Reading D.C.'s Universal Paid Leave Act

Next Post

October 9, 2015 OK, I'll bite. . . Fiorina and the Middle Ages

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was known as the "beloved physician"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Matthew Mark John Luke