Critics of the Constitution allege that Americans do not want to be ruled by a stingy, elitist minority.
This assumption is both stingy and elitist, a classic canard from light-weight academics which respect their own assumptions more than the implications of the same.
The Progressive impulse which has taken hold in post-secondary education has enshrined the prejudices of the human mind far ahead of its inherent limitations. Just as econonics is a "dismal science" in that the study of supply, demand, and scarcity dismisses the pretentions and utopian hopes of intellects, so to political science respecting the infallibly essentials of human nature cannot ignore the desire for power at the expense of truth and value inherent in human beings.
The Constitution recognizes the dangers of group and individual demands. The charter defined indirect representation for two of three critical players in the federal government, the Senate and the Presidency, so that government fiat or personal vendetta or tribal intrigues would not deprive the minority from the same status of right and respect which belongs to every person.
Free Speech is valuable, but not to everyone. The Constitution assures that this right remains supremely situated no matter who may or may not approve of its provisions. The definition of this and other rights descends not from the charter itself, but emerges from the legacy of limited government and individual liberty, a stream which emerged from the Magna Carta of 1215 and the English Bill of Rights in 1689.
Americans do not enjoy any rights because a cadre of Virginia planters assumed that these rights would be a "good idea". Instead, they drew their understanding of a proper republic with majoritarian stability and minority safeguards following the expansive survey of previous governments and ancient histories. They did not arrive at their conclusions about the accepted outlines of governance on their own, and neither should modern critics discredit the Constitution based soliey on their individualized arrogance.
Diffusion of power is the core value of the Constitution. Diffusion of power is anathema to those who would us power, whether for perceived good or confirmed evil. The Progressives of the late nineteenth century have found their popular mouthpiece in President Barack Obama, who chafes at the restrictions on his authority because of an institution called "Congress".
The Framers believed that no matter what, to protect the individual liberty was to frustrate power, and this frustrating core of our national charter remains unpopular, an inevitable and acceptable outcome.
The Constitution is relevant. The Constitution remains.
Article Five permits the United States government permits voters and representatives to amend the Constitution.
Without a unifying charter, every administration could draft its own set of rules, or rule by fiat instead of wisdom.
The precendents of history and the legacies of the Enlightment cannot be ignored when evaluating the role and the purview of the United States Constitution.
That document recognizes the essential procedures based on the frustration of populist passions, elitist intentions, and monarchical ambitions.
If there had been no division of powers, no checks and balances, the United States Government would be sputtering along just as poorly as the impoverished European socialist welfare-states.
This country has long traditions because of the Constitution. The letter as much as the Spirit of the laws counts for something, embodied in the Constitution. For these and other reasons, the very notion of discarding the Constitution should be discarded immediately.