Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Tuesday, May 21, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Read That Constitution

So who's against the Constitution?

And why don't we hear more about the anti-constitutional arguments?

These questions occurred to me when I opened an envelope with no indication on the outside as to its source, to find a solicitation from the American Civil Liberties Union.

And along with the usual "Dear Friend" letter and suggested donation card was a pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution.

It was kind of like finding a Bible inside a church-donation pitch.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm not complaining.

But my immediate thought was: Isn't the ACLU thought of as a left-wing kind of group, and don't right-wing groups always claim to be protecting the Constitution too?

So who are all these people protecting it from?

The Destroy the Constitution Party?

Is the Constitution in that much danger?

I did the natural thing - I Googled "anti-constitution party."

The top entry came back as "Constitution Party (US)."

"Anti-federalism" came in second. That happened in 1788, so I don't think it counts.

As far as I can tell, there's so little organized anti-constitutionalism that the best Google could come up with was people accusing other people of being anti-constitutional, whether they are or not.

Google item four was some guy ranting that Republicans are anti-Constitution.

Item five was a rant that the Constitution Party is anti-Constitution.

I think the theme is that anyone who disagrees with you is against the Constitution. I can live with that, but it's a little confusing.

What if there are things wrong with the Constitution? We're all so busy claiming to be in favor of it that we have no idea what's really in there. Maybe there are some things to be against.

Then I realized I had a pocket-sized Constitution right there in my hands.

Consider some random passages to see if you're really in favor of this Constitution thing.

Start with this one: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Now, come on. Be honest. Does anybody really think Congress is a good idea? The Constitution is questionable right off the bat.

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States."

Did you know that American Idol was unconstitutional?

This is a terrible idea. Why is there no Dame Winfrey or Lord Jobs?

And the Kardashians need titles of some kind.

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour ..."

So why are all those guys still in office?

"In Suits, at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ..."

Someone wasn't anticipating a litigation glut.

Is it all right for us to be ignoring parts of the Constitution like that?

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of ago or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

We have to come up with some other reason other than age for denying votes.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

So no one can be president who wasn't born in the 18th century. Let's see those birth certificates!

Then there's the requirement that the president be at least 35.

Does this make any sense?

Consider: Sergey Brin and Larry Page founded Google when they were in their 20s. Mark Zuckerberg was an undergrad inventing Facebook. Bill Gates didn't bother finishing up at Harvard when he started Microsoft.

And who wouldn't vote for Justin Bieber?

Now let's get into the minds of the Founding Fathers on this issue. Wasn't 35 practically one-foot-in-the-grave back then? This has got to be adjusted for age inflation. Their intent was that someone almost dead be president.

I could see the advantages of that - you don't have to worry about term limits. But are they going to be able to use their phones? Should they be joining some of those Congresspeople taking naps during the State of the Union?

You see? There are reasons to be anti-Constitution.

Categories / Uncategorized

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.