Wednesday, Jul 30, 2014 11:20 pm est

U.S. constitution needs amending

Posted on November 7, 2012 | by Ian Mark

Consider the following scenario: You’ve come down with a fever and a sore throat, so you go to your doctor. He examines you and then, without warning, he pulls out a box of leeches and comes towards you. Shocked, you ask for an explanation. He declares that this is the way it has been done for over 200 years in this country and to change his methods would be un-American.

Would you continue seeing this doctor? Of course not. You would realize that relying on tradition in regard to your health is naive and foolish.

Now consider our government. For over 200 years, we have relied on the Constitution to guide us. Legal arguments almost always come down to what we believe the Founding Fathers intended. Ironically, this approach is not what the framers intended. They imagined the Constitution as a living document that would grow along with the country. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Every 30 years, we should hold a new Constitutional Convention and work out the things that do not function properly in our political arrangements. Because as we grow older, as a republic, you cannot expect a man to wear a boy’s jacket.”

It was clear to Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers that they could not predict the future and that they must provide some method for succeeding generations to adapt the Constitution to present times.

Some argue that the Constitution is intentionally vague; their understanding of a living document is one that can be reinterpreted over the years without changing the wording. However, this understanding places an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the Supreme Court. The Court operates by way of simple majority, which means that just five justices can change the law. This leads to partisan outcomes like those of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee and Bush v. Gore.

The other issue with the reinterpretation theory is that there is no mention of it in the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution includes the amendment process, which requires two-thirds of both houses to propose an amendment and three-fourths of state legislatures to ratify it. These steep requirements insure that a large majority support amendments.

But time and time again we have used the first method rather than the latter. We have reinterpreted the Constitution so many times that terms such as interstate commerce have lost all meaning. And we have ignored the amendment process as a viable means of updating our founding document. Since the Bill of Rights was enacted 221 years ago, we have amended the Constitution only 17 times. We haven’t had a meaningful amendment since 1964, when poll taxes were banned.

Today, corporations are people, gay people are denied civil rights and the president murders American citizens without trial. As silly as it is to consult a 200-year-old medical textbook on how to fight AIDS, it is just as silly to rely on a 200-year-old founding document to govern the internet, drone warfare and any of the countless other inventions that did not exist when the document was written.

A version of this article appeared in the Wednesday, Nov. 7 print edition. Ian Mark is a staff columnist. Email him at


profile portrait
Felipe De La Hoz

Multimedia Editor | Felipe De La Hoz is a Colombian national studying journalism at the College of Arts and Sciences. Having been born in Colombia and raised in the United States, Mexico and Brazil, Felipe is a trilingual travel aficionado and enjoys working in varied and difficult environments. Apart from his photography, Felipe enjoys investigative reporting and interviews, interviewing the likes of Colombian ex-M-19 guerrilla fighters and controversial politician Jimmy McMillan. He has covered everything from governmental conferences to full-blown riots, as well as portraiture shoots and dining photography. Having worked under Brazilian photojournalists for Reuters and AFP, Felipe hopes to one day work on demanding journalistic projects and contribute to the global news cycle.

Ann Schmidt

News Editor | Ann is a liberal studies sophomore who lived in Florence during her freshman year. She plans on double-majoring in journalism and political science and is always busy. She is constantly making lists and she loves to laugh.


Daniel Yeom

Daniel started at the Features desk of WSN last Spring, writing restaurant reviews whilst indulging on free food and consequently getting fat. Last Fall, he was the dining editor, and he this semester he is senior editor. Daniel is in Gallatin (living the dream) studying Food & Travel Narratives, incorporating aspects of Food Studies, Journalism, and Media, Culture, and Communication. He loves food more than life itself.

Hannah Luu

Deputy Multimedia Editor | Hannah Luu is a ridiculously great Deputy Multimedia Editor. She is a sophomore from Northern California. If you think Northern California means San Francisco you might need to closely examine a map. She is passionate about NPR and being half Asian.

  • How to join:

    The Washington Square News holds open weekly budget meetings at its office located at 838 Broadway every Sunday. All are welcome to attend, no matter your background in journalism, writing, or reporting. Specific times for meetings by desk are listed below. If you wish to talk to an editor before you attend, feel free to check out the Staff page.

    5 P.M. 6 P.M. 6 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 7 P.M.

    Applying for an editor position: Applications for editor positions during the fall or spring semesters are available twice each academic year and can be found here when posted. Applications for the Fall 2012 semester are closed, but check back for Spring 2013. Those who wish to apply are urged to publish pieces in the newspaper and contact current editors for shadowing.

    History of the Washington Square News:

    The Washington Square News is the official daily student newspaper of New York University and serves the NYU, Greenwich Village, and East Village communities. Founded as an independent newspaper in 1973, the WSN allows its undergraduate writers and photographers to cover campus and city news and continues to grow its strong body of award-winning journalists and photographers.

  • The WSN has a circulation of about 60,000 and can be found in over a hundred purple bins distributed throughout campus. It is published Monday through Thursday during the fall and spring semesters and online on Friday, with additional special issues published in the summer. The newspaper recently revamped its website during the Fall 2012 semester.

    Like few campus newspapers in the country, the paper is editorially and financially independent from the university and is solely responsible for selling advertisements to fund its production. The WSN, including its senior staff, is run solely by current undergraduate students and the business-division is largely student-operated as well.

    A Board of Directors comprised of alumni, NYU professors and working news media professionals serves as advisors to the paper. Board members have no control in the WSN's editorial policy or newsroom operations. Alumni of the newspaper are established and leading journalists in such news organizations as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, NBC news, ABC news, Fox News, and USA Today.