The Instigator
egooch1
Pro (for)
The Contender
magnetawan
Con (against)

Is the U.S. Constitution still a good model for the rest of the world?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
egooch1 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 374 times Debate No: 107041
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

egooch1

Pro

I am for the Constitution in its present form, I intend to prove that though it may be old, it has worked this long and should remain as is. While there are many reasons that we don"t need a new Constitution, I have one main one that negates the rest!
magnetawan

Con

I am against the current state of our Constitution, and I intend to prove that although our country and society has changed drastically as a whole, it feels as though the Constitution is in need of updating to fit our country's current ideas.
Debate Round No. 1
egooch1

Pro

Article Five of the Constitution reads, "the Congress shall propose Amendments to this constitution"" The ability to amend, is written into our Constitution; our Founding Fathers knew that we would need to make changes as times evolved. They knew life would one day be very different than it was in 1787. They did not intend for the Constitution to be tossed out and "modernized"; they intended for changes to be made as the times changed so that it would grow with us.
If we start changing the constitution now, when will it stop? Everybody has such strong opinions on what they want involving the Constitution, it could very easily divide this great nation even more.
magnetawan

Con

Due to the age of our Constitution and the time in which it was written, it has become outdated for our current society. Our country has almost 4 times the number of states and if you look at the people and government in the 1700's when the Constitution was written, there was not much diversity in the people allowed to run our country. However, today the United States is one of the largest mixing pots in the world, meaning many of the people living here are unable to take part in certain government positions. This mainly being the fact that only someone born in America can be the President. I feel that this is an issue because even if someone has lived here their entire life and devoted themselves to helping the country they love, if they happened to be born in a foreign country there is no way that they would ever have a chance at making a significant difference. Adding to this, the Constitution still includes the differences between races and "free" verses "enslaved" people, even though slavery has been illegal for more than 150 years. On another note, one of the biggest issues to me personally is the idea of the electoral college, which has not changed very much over the years. Although it may have been useful when we only had a hand full of states, now that we have 50 we have a larger population, meaning that the reasons for the electoral college have become irrelevant. Many people say that if we had a direct election it would be unfair, however, I cannot see how every person having their own vote would be more unfair. The is mainly directed towards the fact that it is almost impossible for people of states that mainly vote one way to use their right to vote since they would all go to waste. The biggest example is from our previous election and how the presidency went to the candidate who had less overall votes, which seems unfair to all the people who voted just to be ignored because of where they live.
Although our country is becoming more divided every year, something must be done to make it a safer and fairer place for everyone, not just those who feel entitled to it.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by hailyellis21 3 weeks ago
hailyellis21
I agree with the cons side. I believe that u.s. Constitution is not still a good model for the rest of the world. It was made so long ago and specifically for the u.s. The government and the world's issues change daily and I believe that the rest of the world should have a new one if it id thought to be needed.
Posted by YaBoiGeorgeWashington 4 weeks ago
YaBoiGeorgeWashington
The U.S. Constitution was written for the United States. Therefore, if other countries want to use a similar system they will have to adapt it to their own circumstances.
Posted by katherinesebastian 4 weeks ago
katherinesebastian
I completely agree with the "con" side, it seems very well researched and agrees with my opinions. My opinion being that the constitution in a 200 year old piece of paper that was written with only 13 states in mind. If we were to use the Constitution as a good model for the rest of the world, then we'd be insisting that slavery should still exist, marriage is only between a man and a woman, and several other modern injustices. We also have to consider how the government needs changes and isn't a perfect model, meaning it shouldn't be used by others, as our representative system blocks out the votes of those who are the minority in their states, meaning that there is barely a point in voting if your state always votes a certain way.
Posted by katherinesebastian 4 weeks ago
katherinesebastian
I completely agree with the "con" side, it seems very well researched and agrees with my opinions. My opinion being that the constitution in a 200 year old piece of paper that was written with only 13 states in mind. If we were to use the Constitution as a good model for the rest of the world, then we'd be insisting that slavery should still exist, marriage is only between a man and a woman, and several other modern injustices. We also have to consider how the government needs changes and isn't a perfect model, meaning it shouldn't be used by others, as our representative system blocks out the votes of those who are the minority in their states, meaning that there is barely a point in voting if your state always votes a certain way.
Posted by abbyc 4 weeks ago
abbyc
Our constitution is fine, however, there needs to be some updating and more government officials following what is written.
Posted by melross1971 4 weeks ago
melross1971
Our Constitution is no longer respected as it once was. Nations writing new constitutions don't see it as the prototype to be followed. All have something in common with our president. The Constitution doesn't seem to be of much use to Donald Trump, either. The president who spends his time insulting the citizens of the United States among other countries. The U.S. Constitution has failed in many ways, when you speak about racial profiling and the criminal justice system that seems to be one-side and it"s all about who knows who. The Founders "designed a system that have made it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." Especially when you talk about gun control.
Posted by Geezus92 4 weeks ago
Geezus92
egooch1 creates a paradoxical argument: "The Constitution is good the way it is" with "the Constitution is good because it included the ability to change it". If the Constitution's primary appeal is its adaptability to changes in society, than it is in direct opposition to the premise of Pro's argument. For instance, the 14th amendment (changing the original constitution) recognized the illegality of slavery. This is a material change to the "original" intent of the Constitution, considering almost all of the drafters of the Constitution had slaves and did not include explicit articles or provisions mentioning this. To believe the drafters of the constitution could envision a nation that must deal with automatic cars, cellular phones, or Reddit flies in the face of everything the Constitution's Fifth Article meant to achieve: that the world is not static. It develops. It changes and advances and societal understanding of what is right or good develops along with it. So to say we shouldn't change the Constitution when they themselves KNEW that the country will change defeats Pro's first argument altogether. If the founders' embedded the Constitution to allow change, to empower the legislature to do so out of the will of the people rather than 1700's standards of horse drawn carriages and thinking pulling teeth cured insanity. The Constitution inherently allows for change for that reason. And therefore, out of the will of the people and interpretation of it by the Supreme Court, the Constitution should change, and Pro fails out of pure conflict within his or her first argument.
Posted by Mysticsquire 4 weeks ago
Mysticsquire
I agree with egooch1 he makes a good point in the sense that the founding fathers did intend for the constitution to change with this modern age and they have the elastic clause which also allows for some change in the constitution.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.