Why the constitution needs to be rewritten

The US Constitution has existed over 230years with reasonable observation, it has failed to stand
the test of time. There is evolution happening every single day and the change shall keep
happening. Until before the Reconstruction Amendments, African American rights and
protection of citizenship were totally undermined.
There are more issues identified over the years to be totally wrong with our Constitution and they
stretch from the whimsical inadequacy of the bill of rights to the vagaries of democracy. The US
Constitution has major issues upto date and these raise red flags for any right thinking person
however, this has not been brought to the attention of many because of the peripheral the routine
documentation of the Constitution’s contents in public opinion polls.1 This calls for a need to
have this Constitution rewritten just like the first Constitution of the deeply flawed Articles of
Confederation adopted in 1777 was abandoned because it was practically impossible.
To keep counting on the world’s longest serving Constitution that ceases to function to the
modern day demands is an absurdity that the USA continues to suffer.
Ensuring that the rules governing the great nation of the USAis having totally dedicated political
move to have the current Constitution jilted and adopting a new and revolutionary constitution
that shall have the ability to address all possible concerns until a certain period of time to
legitimize the need for a new generation to make rules and procedures fit govern that opportune
era and demands of time.
Suggesting that the Constitution is rewritten after every seventy years feasible to the span of life
and would mean that a new generation capable of handling great constitutional matters is
procurable. According to Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers felt the need to have the
Constitution rewritten every 19 years back in 1789 in a letter to the Virginia Lawyer Samuel
Kercheval arguing that the earth belongs to the living and not the dead is a more convincing
reason to have our constitution rewritten. It is therefore not strange that there have been many
propositions to have the Constitution rewritten because of the underlying issues that this
Constitution has. The Founding Fathers intended the document to be flexible in order to fit the
changing needs and circumstances of the country when they wrote the constitution.
Although this matter is subject to discussion, it is, however, practically outlandish. The US
Constitution has been designed in a way that tells us how to make statutes but there is no
superior authority that guides the procedure for a new constitution.2 Therefore, a thorough
constitutional reconstruction demands a special heated political campaign. It requires a
widespread conviction that the old constitutional rules are no longer satisfactory and an equally
broad agreement on the principles that ought to guide design of the replacement.3 This would

1
For a summary of recent findings, see Americans Know Surprisingly Little About Their Government,
SurveyFinds,PRNEWSWIRE(Sept.17,2014),http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-know-
surprisingly-little-about-theirgovernment-survey-finds-27542003 1html.
2
See Richard S. Kay, Constituent Authority, 59 AM. J. CoMp. L. 715, 725-27 (2011).
3
Such critical attention to fundamental matters of constitutional design shares much with Bruce
Ackerman's device of a "constitutional moment" applicable both to formal and informal constitutional
change. See, e.g., 1 BRUCE ACKERMAN, WE THE PEOPLE 133 (1991). I refer here only to the explicit
abandonment of one constitution and its replacement with another.
mean that the resulting new constitution would be far more credible to be the pukka act of the
people than the current original Constitution written and approved by the farmers that are long
dead.
Taking on a task this big has the most challenging part to do with what could possibly be
contained by the new charter to discard the old original Constitution with its amendments.
Convincing an entire nation that adoption of a new fresh constitution is in their best interest is
the hardest thing especially with the fact that people are ignorant and comfortable. So many
Americans pay so much allegiance to the Constitution because they have been taught that doing
so is being jingoistic. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan became a national hero in the Nixon
impeachment hearings in 1974 when she said: "My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is
complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the
subversion, the destruction of the Constitution."4
It takes total faith that the Constitution serves to satisfy the whole critical role of governance,
liberty and commerce. To have anyone reconsider what is safe for the uncertainties is like putting
a blind man in the middle of the ocean. It's risky and definitely a situation where no one would
bet to take for it would give rise to arbitral rule and promote anarchism. Such are the biggest
obstacles to have the constitution rewritten.

4
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, Statement at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Impeachment
Hearings (July 25, 1974), available at GIFTS OF SPEECH, http://gos.sbc.edu/j/jordan3.htil.