'The US constitution is no longer fit for purpose'. Discuss

Scrap it	Keep it
Imperial Judiciary. When drafting the Constitution the Founding Fathers intended that neither branch would become too powerful, however, this has failed and the US Constitution has created an ‘imperial judiciary’ in which the Supreme Court has become too powerful. For an unelected body the Supreme Court exercises too much influence through its power of judicial review and is able to strike down any laws and actions of states and the other two branches. The Supreme Court interferes in many issues that should be considered local such as Obergefell v Hodges & U.S v Windsor (gay marriage), Gonzales v Carhart & McCullen v. Coakley (abortion). Their ability to enact social change as an unelected body and interfere with issue that should be local has truly generated an image of an imperial judiciary.	The Supreme Court plays an important role in upholding the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights which are the basic freedoms and liberties every US citizen is entitled to and it is important the bill of rights is maintained, especially at a time when its becoming increasingly threatened with the PATRIOT Act and whatnot. Judicial review isn’t too powerful arguably as the Supreme Court lacks enforcement and initiation power and are thus, unable to excessively flaunt about their power of judicial review.
Imperial Presidency. The modern presidency, as Schlesinger argues has become an imperial presidency whereby just like the Supreme Court, the President is too powerful. The Presidents have effectively exploited their role as Commander-in-Chief in overtaking Congress’ constitutional power of being able to declare war which Congress has not used since 1941 on Japan and since then, the President has been involved in a lot of wars despite Congress not formally declaring war. This still continues to be the case today in which there is a struggle for privilege of directing American foreign policy. The Obama administration for instance has been one that is characterised by power, secrecy and arguably illegality as illustrated by his excessive use of drone strikes in the Middle-East which exceeds 2,400 as of last year which Congress does not supervise. Obama created the Internal Revenue Service which has come under a lot of controversy recently after it was discovered that the IRS selected key conservative political groups (especially ones with ‘Tea Party’ in their name). In other words, Obama set up an agency to get rid of political opponents. Also, executive orders have contributed to an image of an imperial presidency with Rand Paul referring to Obama’s executive order on immigration as the actions of a king or an ‘emperor’, allowing him to effectively bypass Congress and legislate and push forward his agenda from the Oval Office	Regardless of losing it’s core constitutional role, Congress still continues to play a huge role in foreign policy. This was seen by when Obama had to submit a report to the Senate requesting further authorisation to use force against ISIS earlier this year and the Senate vote which the President had to rely on later. Congress still continues to play a major role in foreign policy regardless of not declaring war. Also, arguably the executive is not too powerful given the fact that the Constitution grants the legislature the power of investigation through its congressional committees to scrutinise every action of the executive branch – even Obama’s IRS controversy was investigated by the House Oversight Committee and later the House Committee on Ways and Means. The executives actions in the area of foreign policy are also often scrutinised through committees, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigated Hilary Clinton’s poor handling of the Benghazi attacks in 2012. Power of the purse grants funding to key departments which are affected by the executive order, if they’re not funded the President’s executive order fails as was nearly the case with the DHS. Also, a Texas legislature recently put on-hold Obama’s executive order, again showing how they’re not so imperial afterall.
Gridlock. The system of constitutional checks and balances has contributed to consistent gridlock in the last few years. With increasing polarisation since the 1990s both parties have moved further away from the centre ground making it more difficult for them to agree on absolutely anything and as a consequence of this, the story of the last few years has been one of continuous gridlock which has got to a point where nothing is done, 2013 for instance was the least productive legislative year and nowhere has gridlock been more evident than on the issue of healthcare, particularly Obamacare, which led to a government shutdown in 2013, thus epitomising the true extent of how checks and balances contributes to gridlock. Gridlock has also been evident from Obama’s 2015 state of the union address in which he made clear that he will veto any attempts made by Congress to overturn Obamacare and others, and has already vetoed the Keystone Pipeline since then.	It’s important to note that the Founding Father’s wanted there to be gridlock and an increase in polarisation. So, the current state of Washington politics reflects the utility of the Constitution. The Founding Father’s wanted there to be a sense of divided government to ensure that checks and balances allowed responsible governing and scrutiny for all branches. Obama being a Democrat in the White House and a Republican stronghold in Congress ensures scrutiny and some gridlock when legislating which is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted as this prevents neither branch from becoming too excessively powerful.
Federalism is failing. Key aspects of the US Constitution have been eroded in recent years rendering the Constitution virtually meaningless. For instance, federalism, a core aspect of the Constitution, has gradually been eroded through (arguably) Obamacare by ensuring that it is the federal government who maintains the role of welfare provider (taking it away from the states). The scope of federal government has ultimately grown in ways the Founding Fathers did not anticipate on and early examples include FDR’s New Deal and LBJs Great Society programme.	However, in 1996 President Clinton declared that ‘the era of big government is over’ and this has certainly been true through the Supreme Court. The importance of federalism has not gone unnoticed by the Supreme Court and steps have been taken to further entrench federalism such as through Shelby County v. Holder which ruled that states no longer had to request the permission of the Attorney-General before changing their voting practices under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Electoral College. The Electoral College is another key aspect of the US constitution, however, it’s now become an anachronism. Since it’s incarnation there have been literally over 700 congressional attempts at either abolishing or reforming the electoral college and it’s clear why: it has the tendency to suppress the popular will through two ways, the first being its ability to allow the national popular vote winner to lose the EC as was the case with Bush and Gore in 2000 when Gore got 51m votes and Bush only 50.4m and also through faithless or ‘rogue’ electors as was the case also in 2000 when Barbara Lett Simmons refused to cast her vote for Gore in protest of a lack of congressional representation for the District of Columbia despite Gore winning the popular vote in DC.	However, the electoral college is an important element to the federal identity as it ensures that every single state has a fair say in electing the president, JFK remarked that ‘we cannot abolish one component of federalism without considering the other’, an alternative system to the electoral college will allow large urban states to impose profound influence at the expense of smaller states. The electoral college has served America well for over 200 years and it’s ability to suppress the popular will has only happened four times.
Judicial Review is too powerful. The power of judicial review is too powerful as it allows the meaning of the constitution to alter without altering the text itself. This is a known problem among judicial activists who have been able to change the US constitution beyond all recognition. For instance, it is the Supreme Court that decided what ‘cruel and unusual’ is under the 8th Amendment, and arguably the 8th amendment is ineffective and is evidence that the Constitution no longer works as the CIA torture report revealed the inhumane and cruel treatment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.	Simple fact remains that the constitution has survived over two hundred years and continues to serve its purpose effectively to this day after surviving a civil war, two world wars, the cold war, impeachment of two presidents, riots and civil disorders. The Founding Father’s wanted the US constitution to be updated very often.
Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, are no longer respected today and for this reason the Constitution fails to function, this was most recently made evident through the Edward Snowden leaks of the NSA’s mass data collection programmes and also the CIA torture report.	The Bill of Rights still plays a core aspect of protecting citizens rights and liberties from erosion – even in the most exceptional cases such as during the war on terror the judiciary upholds the Bill of Rights and ensures the protection of fundamental rights such as in cases like Hamdan v Rumsfeld (military commission to try Guantanamo Bay detainees was unconstitutional) and Boumediene v Bush (Guantanamo detainees have the right to challenge their imprisonment through habeas corpus).