The U.S. Constitution: A time for change?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:46 am
I am what you might call a "constitutionalist." Some folks feel that the constitution should be a "living, breathing" document that changes to be more consistent with the times. Afterall, it was written before things like cars, televisions and nuclear arms were ever thought of.
My opinion is that the constitution is not a "living, breathing" document. It doesn't need to be changed, although it does provide the ability to make changes as deemed necessary (with a lot of hoops to jump through). It was written to declare and protect basic rights. Changes should be few and far between...I mean, how often do rights need to be changed? Rights are rights...a few expansions/contractions from time to time, perhaps, but, not wholesale rewrites or a million additions/subtractions. Certain changes, such as women's right to vote or the abolition of slavery, make perfect sense as humanity matures and grows.
If we apply a logical, common-sense approach to the constitution (and laws), we find that we don't need to continue making new laws, and only an occasional new amendment. The current trend is to try to legislate everything, leaving no room for interpretation or discretion. I find this nauseating.
Take a simple traffic law: Texting while driving. Michigan passed a new traffic law a couple of years ago making it illegal to text while driving. It certainly is a hazard, and many accidents have been caused because people have their heads buried in their phone. Indeed, many folks today are doing anything /but/ driving while motoring oblivious down the road. Because so many accidents were being caused by this new thing called texting, we needed a new law, right? We had to address this new issue that now only exists because of a new technology, right? Wrong. Michigan has had the infraction of Careless Driving on the books forever. Back before we had the infraction of "texting while driving," we simply had to apply common sense and use the careless driving infraction. We wrote careless driving infractions to people putting on make-up, texting, reading the paper or a book while driving, bent over adjusting their stereos, you name it. So we didn't need a new law, the old ones are fine...we just needed to apply it properly.
This is how I feel about most constitutional issues, and most legal issues. Yet lawmakers are writing new legislation as fast as they can. And there are so many laws on the books I don't know how we get through our day without going to jail for something...this makes me have some understanding why people see the police as nothing more than the Gestapo.
My opinion is that the constitution is not a "living, breathing" document. It doesn't need to be changed, although it does provide the ability to make changes as deemed necessary (with a lot of hoops to jump through). It was written to declare and protect basic rights. Changes should be few and far between...I mean, how often do rights need to be changed? Rights are rights...a few expansions/contractions from time to time, perhaps, but, not wholesale rewrites or a million additions/subtractions. Certain changes, such as women's right to vote or the abolition of slavery, make perfect sense as humanity matures and grows.
If we apply a logical, common-sense approach to the constitution (and laws), we find that we don't need to continue making new laws, and only an occasional new amendment. The current trend is to try to legislate everything, leaving no room for interpretation or discretion. I find this nauseating.
Take a simple traffic law: Texting while driving. Michigan passed a new traffic law a couple of years ago making it illegal to text while driving. It certainly is a hazard, and many accidents have been caused because people have their heads buried in their phone. Indeed, many folks today are doing anything /but/ driving while motoring oblivious down the road. Because so many accidents were being caused by this new thing called texting, we needed a new law, right? We had to address this new issue that now only exists because of a new technology, right? Wrong. Michigan has had the infraction of Careless Driving on the books forever. Back before we had the infraction of "texting while driving," we simply had to apply common sense and use the careless driving infraction. We wrote careless driving infractions to people putting on make-up, texting, reading the paper or a book while driving, bent over adjusting their stereos, you name it. So we didn't need a new law, the old ones are fine...we just needed to apply it properly.
This is how I feel about most constitutional issues, and most legal issues. Yet lawmakers are writing new legislation as fast as they can. And there are so many laws on the books I don't know how we get through our day without going to jail for something...this makes me have some understanding why people see the police as nothing more than the Gestapo.