But It's the Constitution...!

“Existence precedes essence,” the existential formula posited by Jean-Paul Sartre, is potentially relevant to more than just the struggle of self-definition (i.e. who am I?) If existence does precede essence, then we are born undefined and develop our essence as we live. It seems the birth of a nation entails a similar pattern of self-definition. Admittedly, a nation is born with some standards (constitutional laws, bills of rights, ect.), and these form the nation’s DNA. But the nation defines itself as it breathes, reacts, and experiences. So, the essence of the United States is much more than what the founding fathers wrote. Perhaps some of the constitution is still relevant and useful, but the founders could not comprehend the whole of the country’s future. So it is nonsensical to apply original constitutional laws to a modern context without first asking whether the original constitution is still relevant. For example, the context that inspired the right to bear arms is vastly different than the modern context of weapons development and control. With this view, we might realize that the right to bear arms should be amended, and at the very least, some unnecessarily dangerous automatic weapons should be banned. Indeed, the nation can and should redefine itself, forever moving towards an ideal.
This redefinition seems especially important when we note what portion of the population possessed authentic rights under the country’s founding documents: Slaves certainly lacked the right to anything (besides perhaps the right to a religion which kept them at least somewhat passive and accepting of their position in life); women were hardly allowed an education. In our modern context, women and African Americans—as well as other minorities—are political leaders, intellectuals, and cultural icons. Undoubtedly, the essence of this country has changed dramatically. I can’t help but question the motives of those with blind faith in the constitution; those “originalists” who reach back into our past and hold tight to the words of our founding fathers as if they are the words of God. I equate this with an attempt to preserve a less free world: A world where men make the decisions and Gay’s stay quiet. Hence I think President Obama’s living document theory of the constitution—a theory which admits the value of the constitution, but insists that it be altered to maintain its relevance—is a more suitable approach to modern law.