The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

The US Constitution should be rewritten

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 404 times Debate No: 83765
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




First, I think this should be more a more hypothetical discussion because I don't see any way that the American government could agree enough to pass something this massive. I'd like to take it in the direction of debating whether the current Constitution really has any authority after how vast the differences in our time periods are.

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.


Pro has to prove 2 different things in this debate and has only begun to focus on the first:

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.
Debate Round No. 1


Well you're saying that I have the burden of proof, which is true, but the two criteria you're giving are completely your own opinion. You don't get to impose a subjective opinion of what the criteria of proof is without even starting the debate.You also only made one argument indirectly, saying it is a "waste of time and resources".

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.


Pro's subjective urge for the constitution to be rewritten is the entire basis for this debate. If he can have a subjective basis for his case, he has no right to attack me for having one too. Unfortunately, my two angles were not based on subjective opinion but on objective fact; either the constitution is satisfactory or it may as well be gotten rid of aas it is standing in the way of politics today.

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.[] On top of this a suppsed constitution itself [] 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.
Debate Round No. 2


Firstly, there are multiple sources stating Jefferson believed the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 or 20 years. NPR did an article on rewriting it. And while no the Constitution does not state itself to rewrite it, when the writer of the document believed it should be redone so as not to hold back progress I think that lends credence to my stance. I do not know the circumstances in which he expressed this opinion but I can believe that it would not be a popular one in the government at the time. (Also the article I linked was not be read, sorry about that, just showing where the quote was from)

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.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Skynet 10 months ago
Gungans spoil my fun again. I was just about to accept this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bananaedmonkey 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: That debate was awful. Both sides used brazen fallacies, pro especially. Con had the better sources.