You almost refer to the constitution as if it is a document form the deep past. The constitution can be amended and has been several times. This means it is current and representative of peoples current will (- whatever time it takes to make changes into effect). You could be better of arguing that if something that is constitutional shouldn’t be followed it should be made unconstitutional rather than stop following the constitution.
Now it could be a valid line of criticism that in the maintenance of the constitution too much emphasis is placed on the original intents and purposes. But mainly the constitution has been so stable because Americans have kept finding the principles good. If somebody would come and suggest that this liberty thing be taken off from constitution that kind of modification would be unlikely to pass. Other kinds of revisions such as cleaning it from religious references might be more successful (thought I doubt that one).
Disregarding sovereignty of legal entities in favor of ethical considerations very easily takes the form of warmongering where you do crusades to impose your brand of morals. It is like saying that rogue states ought to be bulldozed over. It is a little more understandable when you mean things like Iran with rogue states but when you mean states of your own federation it is remarkably militant. Well, it did end up starting a war. But appeals to constitution are attempts on how it could have been processed without war.
Note that in arguing that sovereignty of states should not be recognized you are warmongering for a war that hasn’t been fought yet (if you are not arguing that the states should hand over sovereignty voluntarily, unilaterally declaring that they don’t have it anymore is taking it away from them by force).
It can be kinda dodgy that amendments to the constitution are not made as often as maybe they should be and that there is undue pressure to keep the legal practice current via interpretation of law. However that existence of the constitution makes a different impact in different times doesn’t by itself tell of a design flaw. If not in the constitution it is a popular ideas that Americans should be judged by a “jury of their peers”. This kind of declaration might lead in a changing sense of justice among ordinary people to give different judgements at different points in time. However it can also be seen to protect american from old dated world views. Inclusion of ordinary people ensures that legal professionals do not stray too far form the realities of everyday life or that old dated worldviews would give unjust results in a new world. Now I am not super thrilled how the situation of application of a law that should have been updated is handled. Ordinary people get a veto right against all the honed intricacies of law machinery. While the attempt to try to have politically motivated supreme court decisions is apparent and a little problematic there is an even bigger problem that anyone that is eligible for jury duty can try to spit on laws that are less powerful than the constitution, gaining a power comparable to that of a supreme court judge. Arguably if your legal system can have the effect of placing a duty to cause a death of a person (capital punishment) it does need pretty heavy duty freedom of conscience. However when the power is so much that showing awareness of it can make you ineligible for jury duty there is a paradoxical situation where citizens can’t be informed of their constitutional guarantees so that persons that use them in appropriate situations do not get overshadowed by persons that use them for politically motivated reasons. Paradoxically if you understand what the constitution does for you, you can’t exercise all its rights (I am not super clear whether every US citizen that reads this has lost part of their constitutional rights, people that know better please inform whether I should retract better).
Unlike some courts of US, The US supreme court is, like it’s name, supreme. It is the final authority on the application of US law. It’s decisions by definition can’t be unconstitutional. If it makes a mistake it must correct itself. Off course the supreme court is free to consult the general public on whether it should make such a correction. But there is none that can compel it in a hard way to make such a decision (you need to bring down all of US law to do it, ie russia with it’s nukes is your best chance of forcing the issue, or “The people” need to withdraw their mandate for which there is no formal process and the informal process is usually called a revolution). In case that there is sufficient difference between the law makers and law interpreters, the law makers must make a new law that is sufficiently clear that it can’t be interpreted in the “wrong way” (or like end the separation of powers and abolish the supreme court). However because retroactive laws are forbidden (atleast of now) those particular cases heard can’t be recovered from (off course you can make laws that make it mandatory to make up past US conduct to particular individuals, but it is kinda bad style of legislation to mention people by name).
Things like same-sex marriage are probably not important enough to bring down the federation of USA down (I guess slavery was?). The issue is how Americans can tackle those issues without trampling with the constructions that keep their country standing. If you mainly care about marriage arrangements you need to show an alternative way how the mechanism that keep interfering can be solved in another way that they don’t interfere with marriage issues. Just throwing stuff to the waste bin is not a solution.
You almost refer to the constitution as if it is a document form the deep past. The constitution can be amended and has been several times. This means it is current and representative of peoples current will (- whatever time it takes to make changes into effect). You could be better of arguing that if something that is constitutional shouldn’t be followed it should be made unconstitutional rather than stop following the constitution.
Now it could be a valid line of criticism that in the maintenance of the constitution too much emphasis is placed on the original intents and purposes. But mainly the constitution has been so stable because Americans have kept finding the principles good. If somebody would come and suggest that this liberty thing be taken off from constitution that kind of modification would be unlikely to pass. Other kinds of revisions such as cleaning it from religious references might be more successful (thought I doubt that one).
Disregarding sovereignty of legal entities in favor of ethical considerations very easily takes the form of warmongering where you do crusades to impose your brand of morals. It is like saying that rogue states ought to be bulldozed over. It is a little more understandable when you mean things like Iran with rogue states but when you mean states of your own federation it is remarkably militant. Well, it did end up starting a war. But appeals to constitution are attempts on how it could have been processed without war.
Note that in arguing that sovereignty of states should not be recognized you are warmongering for a war that hasn’t been fought yet (if you are not arguing that the states should hand over sovereignty voluntarily, unilaterally declaring that they don’t have it anymore is taking it away from them by force).
It can be kinda dodgy that amendments to the constitution are not made as often as maybe they should be and that there is undue pressure to keep the legal practice current via interpretation of law. However that existence of the constitution makes a different impact in different times doesn’t by itself tell of a design flaw. If not in the constitution it is a popular ideas that Americans should be judged by a “jury of their peers”. This kind of declaration might lead in a changing sense of justice among ordinary people to give different judgements at different points in time. However it can also be seen to protect american from old dated world views. Inclusion of ordinary people ensures that legal professionals do not stray too far form the realities of everyday life or that old dated worldviews would give unjust results in a new world. Now I am not super thrilled how the situation of application of a law that should have been updated is handled. Ordinary people get a veto right against all the honed intricacies of law machinery. While the attempt to try to have politically motivated supreme court decisions is apparent and a little problematic there is an even bigger problem that anyone that is eligible for jury duty can try to spit on laws that are less powerful than the constitution, gaining a power comparable to that of a supreme court judge. Arguably if your legal system can have the effect of placing a duty to cause a death of a person (capital punishment) it does need pretty heavy duty freedom of conscience. However when the power is so much that showing awareness of it can make you ineligible for jury duty there is a paradoxical situation where citizens can’t be informed of their constitutional guarantees so that persons that use them in appropriate situations do not get overshadowed by persons that use them for politically motivated reasons. Paradoxically if you understand what the constitution does for you, you can’t exercise all its rights (I am not super clear whether every US citizen that reads this has lost part of their constitutional rights, people that know better please inform whether I should retract better).
Unlike some courts of US, The US supreme court is, like it’s name, supreme. It is the final authority on the application of US law. It’s decisions by definition can’t be unconstitutional. If it makes a mistake it must correct itself. Off course the supreme court is free to consult the general public on whether it should make such a correction. But there is none that can compel it in a hard way to make such a decision (you need to bring down all of US law to do it, ie russia with it’s nukes is your best chance of forcing the issue, or “The people” need to withdraw their mandate for which there is no formal process and the informal process is usually called a revolution). In case that there is sufficient difference between the law makers and law interpreters, the law makers must make a new law that is sufficiently clear that it can’t be interpreted in the “wrong way” (or like end the separation of powers and abolish the supreme court). However because retroactive laws are forbidden (atleast of now) those particular cases heard can’t be recovered from (off course you can make laws that make it mandatory to make up past US conduct to particular individuals, but it is kinda bad style of legislation to mention people by name).
Things like same-sex marriage are probably not important enough to bring down the federation of USA down (I guess slavery was?). The issue is how Americans can tackle those issues without trampling with the constructions that keep their country standing. If you mainly care about marriage arrangements you need to show an alternative way how the mechanism that keep interfering can be solved in another way that they don’t interfere with marriage issues. Just throwing stuff to the waste bin is not a solution.