The US Constitution should be rewritten
Debate Rounds (3)
I assert the Constitution needs to be rewritten due to it being out-dated in our modern times. Morals and laws are now much different then when it was written and no longer reflects the nation today. There have been a total of 15 amendments (not including the Bill of Rights) and I think that is entirely too few. Current legislature and laws are still based on this document and, in some cases, prevent progress from occurring.
1) The current constitution is unsuitable.
2) Rather than getting rid of the constitution an entirely new one should be written despite the waste of time and resources that would take.
So far Pro hasn't met their burden of proof on either.
Spending time on rewriting a document which is a main pillar in the American government I would wholeheartedly say is worth the effort. The constitution is the basis for our entire democracy and if what I have said is true, that it is out-dated and has no authority in today's society, then it is cause for major concern when bills and laws are passed based on a faulty document.
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation' - what do you think about that ?
Jefferson himself knew that keeping the same ideals from previous generations would prevent progress and keep the potential of the nation from being fulfilled. If we continue to look back for support from those that have been dead for centuries then how can we grow as a nation? It takes an incredible amount of time to pass bills and laws in Congress and a very influential reason for this is the archaic Constitution. The Constitution includes: Slavery, women not having the right to vote, and it's built with far too many choke points that halt any new progress. Obviously a system of checks and balances is necessary but the bureaucracy is outrageous today.
Also the French government has successfully rewritten its constitution several times, a constitution mind you that is based heavily on our own. It is completely possible to rewrite an institutional government document.
In order to avoid this, Pro begins by linking to a random student posting an article on a forum site. Nowhere in the entire quoting section of the link is Thomas Jefferson ever quoted saying to rewrite the constitution, let alone every 19 years. This is a biased interpretation of what Jefferson said and Pro didn't even write it himself he/she linked you to it expecting you to read the entire thing which ended up being biased interpretation.
When the original constitution (the one we currently use) was written the founding fathers never once indicated or suggested rewriting it.[http://tenthamendmentcenter.com...] On top of this a suppsed constitution itself [https://www.ucl.ac.uk...] has to meet three criteria in order to be considered an officila constitution of a nation:
1. The document is identified explicitly as the Constitution, Fundamental Law, or Basic Law of a country
2. The document contains explicit provisions that establish it as the highest law, either through entrenchment or limits on future law
3. The document defines the basic pattern of authority by establishing or suspending an executive or legislative branch of government.
If 2 is true then no law could be made to rewrite it or challenge it. If 1 is true it is the entire basis on which all other laws are built, you can't build a law on the constitution to then rewrite it as this would destroy the foundation of the law in the first place.
Pro has yet to explain why we should keep the constitution at all.
Second, the Constitution's highest law assertion doesn't make sense, the Bill of Rights were immediate amendments and there were many more changes later. If a document in democracy is absolute and not subject to change then its not democratic and should certainly be rewritten to not be given absolute power. Another point for my side.
There are tremendous issues with the current political system and the Constitution is the main reason for this.
I also don't understand what your argument is because you've given very few reasons why it shouldn't be written or if it should just be thrown out.
Nonsense forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bananaedmonkey 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: That debate was awful. Both sides used brazen fallacies, pro especially. Con had the better sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.