A New Constitutional Convention

Published: 2019-06-13 10:17:30
1493 words
6 pages
13 min to read
143 views

It is true that advocating for a constitutional convention will be too much for other people of in the United States of America, but it will be a necessary step towards eliminating the power of politics in duty execution of public officers. Since the adoption of the constitution, the United States has seen many responsibilities that have come up which the national government requires to address. Since the constitutional convention that was held in Philadelphia, there is no other that has been convened so far. After taking a keen observation on the current status of governance and execution of duties by the different departments of the government and the private sector, I would agree to this proposal. This problem is impeded in the constitution; therefore, a constitution with clear laws on power distribution and limits is necessary. In support of my position, I present a paper that has a detailed insight of how three kinds of flaws in the constitution have given room for politics to overpower the need to deliver services effectively.

If this sample essay on
"A New Constitutional Convention" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Principally, terming the current constitution of the United States as undemocratic is not wrong. Decision-making by the president is paramount. However, over the years, the presidents that have been in office have not been elected by the majority of the voters. One of these flaws is allowing a president to take office even when not elected by the majority; this was observed in the regimes of George Bush, Bill Clinton among others. This has resulted in unequal treatment of the people that either voted in or did not vote for the president. Therefore, since there are only two parties that are accepted in the United States, the Congress and the Republican, the president is prone to take sides during decision making. Majorly, the president will not accept servants that will be working under him who are not loyal. It is evident that he does not work openly with those they do not share the same thoughts with. One such instance was observed in George Bushs regime. He fired army generals on the grounds that they were incompetent. However, the truth has come out; the generals were telling him the truth about the number of soldiers that he was supposed to send out to Iraq (Gregory, 17). When they tried to advise him on this issue he fired them. Taking a close observation of this issue, there is a big flaw in the constitution. Why does the constitution not allow voters to take out of office a president that we no longer have confidence in? This shows that there is need to revise and edit the clauses that allow too much power to the president to practice dictatorship.

Consequently, there is no need to have confidence in choosing a president that will steer the national agenda of the American dream effectively. A convention that will limit the powers that are allocated to the president especially when it comes to making decisions about the right citizen qualified to serve in different government positions is a necessity (Gerald and Mario, 15). This will help the right people to take office and serve the American citizens as the constitution demands.

According to the constitution of the United States, the ruling party that has the majority in the house as well as in the Senate will be in the position to block or allow bills from being adopted into law. This is evident in the governments that have been in power. This means that if the motion presented in the house does not support the agenda and the manifesto of the opposition or the ruling party, the Senate members have the right to take sides (Sanford, 1). It is obvious that the majority will opt for their side; the Democrats decision or the Congressmen decision. This is what is referred to as playing politics instead of making informed decisions of steering forward the national agenda. The majority will, of course, win in either. Sometimes, those that are elected overlook other regions that they consider to have supporters of their opponents (Sanford, 1). These kinds of politics have set in because of the flaws in the constitution. One such example is the position that politicians take on issues such as immigration. With the issue of taking sides evident in leaders that citizens chose to serve them, it is no surprise that this extends to the formation of regional divisions. The existence of the bicameral system that grants the Congress freedom to allow the Senate to veto the House is not good for national cohesion, growth and implementation of policies that are meant for the good of the whole American nation (Sanford, 1). The constitution urges that federalism should be protected and be supported fully. However, with the type of freedom granted to the Senate to block anything the House suggests, it Senate works as the worst form of affirmative action. This is especially for the residents of the small states. Therefore, this is one way of dividing the nation further. This should be taken into account when a constitutional convention has been established because; the blocking of any agenda that the House suggests does not advocate for national growth and development. The big states take advantage of this and block any further competition or development of the small states. One such example is the dysfunctional-agricultural program. In this program, the candidates that seek election do not speak or rather address this issue because some of the large investors have invested in the big states in the Senate widely does invest in this in their states (Gregory, 19). So, discussing about ethanol subsidies is like urging them to leave their investments. The program comes with all sorts of consequences; obesity inclusive.

The last flaw that is noticeable in the constitution is in the judicial system. There is lack of judicial independence. What is termed as judicial independence is wrongly reflected in the judges of the Supreme Court (Gerald and Mario, 15). The constitution has loopholes that allow the sitting presidents to appoint members of the Supreme Court that are relatively young. The reason behind doing this is said to be help them stay for long in the institution. However, this does not help in the defining the judicial independence that is outlined in the constitution. The constitution allows judges to serve for long and gives them the mandate to resign. However, resigning has been noticed to take place when presidents that are sworn into office not from their party. This is not right and shows that the judicial system is not independent as we might think. Therefore, for every flaw that identify, there is a suggestion for its amendment. In this one, I agree with Levinson that the possible solution to avoiding such kind of politically-oriented jury, a specific number of years for the judges should be outlined. The number of years should be limited to 16 years. This will free the judicial system especially, the judges of the Supreme Court from holding office until their preferred presidential candidate has won and is sworn into office.

The above discussed flaws that are some of that are noticeable in the constitution. There are more of these that can be identified. Overall, the political powers that candidates have assumed in this century have clearly highlighted these flaws. It seems that the politicians are using these flaws to address their own interests. One big major problem associated with these flaws is the electoral systems. The campaigns of the parties and the candidates are full of large-spending as noticeable from the previous elections. This should be an eye opener that the candidates have in mind the large sum amounts of money that they will harvest while in office. Therefore, when I office, they deviate from the main agenda of serving the nation. Therefore, the power of the Senate, the power of the president as well as the tenure of the Supreme Court judges should be addressed in this case. I strongly side with Levinson that the only best way to address these flaws that are preventing the nation (United States) from exercising democracy fully is calling for a constitutional convention (Gregory, 21). Since the first convection of this kind, very many aspects have changed; leave alone the increase in the population. The new demands of the American citizens have come up because of their increase in population. This convection can be carried out after every 20 years in order to have all the flaws that hinder development.

Works Cited

Gerald, Benjamin, and Cuomo Mario. 'New York Needs A Constitutional Convention'. Wall Street Journal (2009): A. 15. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Gregory, Hession. 'Who Needs A New Constitutional Convention?'. The New American 26.12 (2010): 16-21. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Sanford, Levinson. 'Get Me Rewrite! George Washington Didnt Think The Constitution Was Sacrosanct Why Do We? Its Time For A New Constitutional Convention.'. Boston Globe (2006): E. 1. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Cite this page

A New Constitutional Convention. (2019, Jun 13). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/a-new-constitutional-convention

Removal

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:

didn't find image

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Our writers are ready to help you now!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism

didn't find image

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Our writers are ready to help you now!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism