Should The Constitution Be Changed Essay

Should the Constitution be rewritten every 19 years?
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
The Constitution is arguably one of the most important documents in the United States of America. The founders spent four very long months

debating and compromising to create a framework for our government that would not only address prevailing issues under the Articles of Confederation, but also potential issues that could arise in the future. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both have important roles in our political history but Constitution-related disagreements did arise between the two. James Madison, unlike Thomas Jefferson, did not feel that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. James Madison wanted the original Constitution to be honored and revered. He was concerned that rewriting it would give rise to rule by passions rather than reason. Rewriting the Constitution in its entirety is basically throwing it, and all of the hard work that went into it, away. Rewriting it would cause it to lose its importance because it would indicate that the core principles and values are not worth keeping. The basics of our government should hold true over time and the amendments should be what keep it relevant. Jefferson frequently defended citizens’ unalienable rights and rewriting the Constitution would put those rights in jeopardy. Every 19 years is far too drastic to completely overhaul our entire system of government. It wasn’t an easy task to form a Constitution that a majority agreed on, even after the Revolutionary war and Shays Rebellion put people in a mood that was much more supportive of a stronger national government. These days, it’s hard enough to get political parties to agree on party platforms. Imagine trying to reproduce a document that an entire country agrees on, over and over again.
In addition to lessening its importance, rewriting the Constitution every 19 years would hurt foreign relations. It would result in other countries viewing our nation as unstable and there are many disadvantages to this. One disadvantage is that it would be a threat to national security. Other nations could see this as an opportunity for terrorism because they would know that there would be disorder and internal division within the United States during that time. Another disadvantage is that rewriting it so frequently would prevent other countries from wanting to make treaties with us. If our entire government were continuously changing then foreign countries would have no guarantee that our previous treaties would remain in effect. This could hurt our relationships with these countries, as well as our economy because it wouldn’t be as appealing to trade with us. If foreign nations thought that America could potentially have a socialist government after the rewriting of our Constitution, our trade opportunities could be limited because other countries would worry about impending trade restrictions. International relations are key and rewriting the Constitution would weaken our relationships with foreign countries.
Furthermore, it would be much easier to exploit power when rewriting the Constitution every 19 years because the powers would eventually expand. Political parties would have much more control if we regularly rewrote it. For example, in 2004 the Republican Party could have rewritten the Constitution so that they could rule until 2024 without interruption under this system. We would no longer have a two party system and there would be a significant drop in public support for government. Rewriting the Constitution that often gives far too much influence to the political party in control because they are free to alter it in whichever way they please. The party in power could rewrite the Constitution to keep their party in permanent control, putting an end to our republic. When the Constitution was designed, the framers designed a separation of powers so that no branch would become too powerful. One of the biggest fears about creating a new governing document after the Articles was that the national government would have too much power. This stemmed from the experiences under British rule such as taxation without representation. If we were to get rid of the Constitution then there would be no way to ensure that political parties don’t become too powerful.
In addition to these points, any future Constitution would likely be longer and much more technical.

The United States is the oldest yet also the shortest in the world (National Constitution Center). Despite the fact that we’ve had the same Constitution for over 200 years, many Americans still are not very familiar with its contents. In a study in 2011, 70% of Americans couldn’t answer the question “What is the supreme law of the land?” and only 38% could name all three branches of the U.S. government (Hentoff). Completely rewriting the Constitution every 19 years would only worsen this existing problem. If most Americans are that illiterate about the Constitution in its current form than it would be really difficult for them to be literate about it if it were rewritten regularly. As soon as people began to be familiar with its contents, the entire system of government would

change.
Thomas Jefferson’s main argument as to why the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years was based on his belief in consent of the governed. Jefferson felt that consent of the governed was very important; meaning that he believed the source of all power in the government should come from the people. He felt this should be kept up-to-date so that those who governed years ago were not the ones currently governing the American public. Social, economic and political circumstances are constantly changing and it’s argued that a document created over 200 years ago couldn’t keep up with current times. It is essential to have a Constitution that is relevant but rewriting it is not necessary. The amendment process, the mechanism for changing the Constitution, makes it possible for those updates to take place. Although the Constitution has only been amended about 20 times, the deliberate process was intentional so that the Constitution wouldn’t be altered too often or too easily. It ensures that the changes being made are necessary and not radical. Many parts of the Constitution were left vague so that they could be interpreted in different time periods. The Constitution should be amended rather than rewritten. Article V lays out the modification process and that is much simpler than starting from scratch.
Currently, officials are able to turn to the Constitution when disagreements arise. The Constitution provides a legal basis and lays out the basic rights of citizens. If our governing document were constantly changing then our nation would have no stable basis to which it could refer. The Supreme Court, under Judicial Review, has the ability to declare any law “unconstitutional”. It would be difficult to determine if a law was unfair if we had a Constitution that was ever-changing. What was once considered illegal could become legal for a period of time before becoming illegal again. This could fluctuate every 19 years until interpretation was meaningless. This would make it exceptionally hard to settle conflict, leading to public uncertainty. Laws would lose significance because they could easily be overturned when the Constitution was rewritten. Laws would lose their importance in the same way that the Constitution itself would lose its importance.
Although Thomas Jefferson has had a profound impact on our government, the idea of rewriting the Constitution every 19 years is unconvincing. James Madison did not support Jefferson’s idea because he did not think it was pragmatic. It is agreed that there will be times when change will be necessary but the difference is on how to deal with these changes. The better solution is to make amendments instead of a rewriting it. Making amendments would inhibit political parties from gaining too much power, limit threats to foreign relations and preserve the framework that the founders worked so hard to establish.