A constitution really only reflects the type of
people who wrote it, the time
peroid when written and the people over time who will find ways to exploit it.
Although we are raised to believe that a constitution is the greatest thing
since sliced bread, there are many flaws. Section 2.1 (d) of the Aug. 28, 1992
Constitutional Accord states: "Canadians and their governments are
committed to the vitality and development of official language minority
communities throughout Canada." Except in 2.1(b) concearning native
languges, all other languges are delibertely left out. This is utterly and
completely racist. This leaves out millions of Canadians and turns them into
"second class citizens." It would be more appropiate to have "offical"
replaced with "white." How can we preach equality if were not equal.
If we left no room for racisim in our constitution we would have the word
"official" replaced with "working" since it is neutral but
still recognizes that French and English are the most dominant languges.
However, the Canadian constitution is not alone in it's racisim. When the
American constitution was written to uphold equality for all and the freedom to
pursue happiness, were the blacks of the country involved. No, of course not.
The constitution refleceted only the white peoples values at the time. The
people who wrote it. Which brings me to my next point. Written constitutions
primarly are flawed since they can't evolve with the nation. They usually
represent ignorant views that are no longer relevent to modern society. How good
will our constitution be in two hundred years? How good will it be in five
hundred years? A good example of this would be the American right to bear arms.
This initially was in order to protect themselves from the British and probably
made perfect sense, at the time. But now this is totally absurd. People have to
live in fear and protect themselves, ironically enough, with guns because there
are so many out there. There are school shootings it seems once every month and
putting control on guns is nearly impossible because it is protected by the
constitution. This correlates directly with my last point. Writing a
constitution gives practically total immunity to every (Warning!! Good Guliver's
Travels symbolisim about to be injected.) yahoo out there. The biggest example
of this is the N.R.A., despite some good promotion by Charlton Heston. They have
the right to bear today's most deadly assualt weapons because they know they can
hide behind the all powerful constitution. The constitution in the U.S. is
exploited so a bunch of rednecks can play with their guns. All attempts of
control on these weapons is continually knocked down because it is
unconstitutional. Hell, that part of the American constitution will probably
never change. Which shows just what kind of damage can be done with the
constitution. All my contempteous arguing can be summed up in this: "A
constitution is a mirror attempting to reflect the national soul." This
leaves room for inevitable error but ensures that we are forever continuing to
improve our constitution.