The Constitution

It's unavoidable to hear mention of the constitution if you even lightly follow American politics or are interested in the history of the nation. It's looked at almost like a sort of religious text by many, and they often follow it with an equally pious zeal, but I'm not entirely sure if that kind of obsession is entirely healthy for the discourse. I wont deny that it's a fantastic document with many great ideals within it (even if many of them were borrowed from the Magna Carta Libertatum), but I look at it more as a guide than with the literal sense. After all, noble as some of the ideals are, it needs to be understood that it's a document that was written well over two hundred years ago. The thing is, I believe that those who drafted it were aware of that, this being the obvious reason for the ability to add and repeal amendments, which has been done twenty seven times. I don't think they looked at it as something that will always be perfect in it's initial form, but rather as a guide for the nation that will grow and change as the country itself does. This is why I tend to disagree with strict "constitutionalists". I think many of them see the document as something set in stone, never to be altered in any manner, lest the nation fall into chaos, and I simply don't believe that to be true. When looking at the document, you should also consider the individuals who wrote it. These men, revered in an almost godlike fashion as they are by many today, were incredibly flawed. Many of them were poorly educated, many came from humble farming backgrounds, and many disagreed fiercely with each other on what should be included and the direction that the nation should take. The idea that the founding fathers were all in agreement on what they wanted for the fledgling nation is toxic and needs to be ditched all together, because the reality, from my studies of the time, is that there were many clashes and disagreements among them, just as there are with us today. It took quite some time for them to finally come to an agreement on what should be included and even then, there were many who were unsatisfied with the results. Again, I can't make it clear enough that I'm entirely opposed to the constitution, I think that for the most part it was a triumph of the democratic process, but like anything in that process, it was imperfect and would need to be mended to reflect the growth and change of the very society that it was designed for. I could point to the obvious flaws, such as the fact that in it all men are declared equal, when in reality it was pretty much only land owning white men that were considered relevant to decision making processes, or that women were not allowed to vote in the original draft, or that slavery was perfectly legal up until the ratification of the 13th amendment, but I don't believe that would help because those features were a reflection of the time in which they were written. It has been changed many times when it was deemed necessary, a striking metaphor for the nation itself, and that's the main point that I'm trying to get across. It's an ambitious, continually changing, imperfect, and for the most part, noble document, much like the United States itself. However, it should be said that the US is obviously not a theocracy, and the constitution is not our bible, so as important as it is, I believe the view and treatment of it as holy scripture is fatally misguided and has the potential to lead many down the path of obsession and fanaticism.