Let’s start by admitting that the document ratified on December 7, 1787, was flawed. Instead of worshiping the Founders as gods that could do no wrong, we could acknowledge their failings and do a better job based on the information we have available today.
We could begin by better selecting who is in the room to hash out the document. Fifty-five people at the Constitutional Convention worked out the language, only thirty-nine of whom signed it. All fifty-five were white, landowning men. The only people the framers found worthy. No women, no Black people, no Native Americans who the country belonged to in the first place—just rich, white men who created a document that naturally favored themselves.
The preamble could be allowed to stand. The framers were reasonably good at lofty words; they didn’t intend for them to apply to everybody. The dictionary definitions of those words will do just fine as opposed to the limited version meant by those who penned them.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Article One of the Constitution contains ten Sections, several of which wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny today. Section Two refers to “Indians not taxed” and “three-fifths of all other Persons.” What is referred to was the Native Americans whose land had been stolen from them; those former inhabitants were afforded no rights. Being magnanimous, the framers decided not to tax Native Americans who had already made a fair contribution with their land. The three-fifths of all other Persons were Black slaves and indentured servants. They also had no rights but needed to be partially counted so that the otherwise more populous, non-slave states couldn’t vote to eliminate slavery in those states that depended on slavery.
Article One, Section Nine, needs some work. A part forbids Congress from eliminating the International Slave Trade for at least twenty years. Part of that is what it sounds like. States like South Carolina that depended on the import of African slaves would never have joined the Union without such protection. The part that is misinterpreted is the suggestion that the framers were looking for a way to phase out slavery after twenty years. In truth, they wanted to eliminate cheaper foreign competition and instead rely on the domestic production of slaves. The additional domestic slaves would come through slave breeding, which included forced relationships between “breeders” and “bucks” and forcible rape by the masters, their families, and friends.
The part of Section Nine that needs clarity is the Emoluments Clause, which is left up to interpretation. The existing language seemed clear enough, but it hasn’t stopped certain people from accepting Emoluments and selling us out while in office.
“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Article Two, Section One, creates the problematic Electoral College. Much like the three-fifths clause, the Electoral College was about protecting slavery as well. It gave more weight to slaveholding states and was all about keeping slavery from being eliminated by a majority of voters. It’s also how we get President’s that didn’t win the popular vote. The requirement that an elector is at least thirty-five years old might deserve a look as well. In Section Four, we might better define “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the basis for Impeachment. Too vague.
Article Two, Section Two, refers to the extradition of people charged with Treason or felonies, which makes sense. It’s that “other Crime,” or those “who shall flee from Justice” that’s concerning. When they talked about persons held to service in one state escaping to another, they were providing for the Fugitive Slave Laws, which were needed to keep slavery going. That part should be deleted.
The first ten Amendments to the Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791. The First Amendment is good; freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble is fundamental, though the last Administration didn’t seem to think so. The Second Amendment is problematic; it all goes back to slavery, making sure that slave patrols could protect the often outnumbered plantation owners. Are we a better nation with so many guns in the hands of so many people?
We might take the Fifth Amendment more seriously; people are being held without charges and due process. It is the same with the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees speedy trials. Gitmo, caged immigrants, or Donald Trump, anyone? The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, yet our bail system means a dual-track justice system, one for the poor and another for the rich, who are often released on their own signature, something not afforded to the poor.
Some advocate taking the whole Constitution and replacing it whole cloth. Parts of the Constitution are well written, though they weren’t originally intended to apply to everyone. Much of it could and should be kept. But if a representative body wrote it by men and women of all colors, some parts would never have been included, and the document that is the basis for a great deal of systemic racism would be totally different. Lastly, is there anyone who believes the framers intended for corporations to be people?