Americans tend to think of our Constitution as a hallowed source of wisdom that should be tampered with only in the most extreme circumstances. But what if it’s really just old—and dumb?

I’m not saying it necessarily is dumb, you understand. The Constitution seems like it has a lot of good things going for it. Then again, it surely does have some dumb ideas, too. (The electoral college?? Psht.) Whether you think it’s dumb or not, we can all agree that it’s old. And, further, that it was written a long time ago by a bunch of dudes who have been dead for a long time and who were not that far removed from believing in witchcraft.

I bring all this up only because of this Peter Singer op-ed about the various types of “political fallacies” identified by Jeremy Bentham in the early 1800s, many of which are still applicable to our modern day world of “satellite television” and “Donald Trump as serious presidential candidate.” This, in particular, stood out:

Bentham’s objection to “natural rights” is often cited. Less frequently discussed is what he calls “the Posterity-chainer’s device.” One example is the Act of Union between England and Scotland, which requires all succeeding sovereigns of the United Kingdom to take an oath to maintain the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. If future generations feel themselves bound by such provisions, they are, Bentham thinks, enslaved by long-dead tyrants.

Bentham’s objection to such attempts to bind posterity applies not only to the union that created the UK, but also the one that formed the US: Why should the current generation consider itself bound by what was decided hundreds of years earlier? Unlike the framers of the US Constitution, we have had centuries of experience to judge whether it does or does not “promote the general welfare.”

If it does, we have all the reason we need to retain it; but if it does not, don’t we have as much power and as much right to change the arrangements under which we are governed as the framers had to prescribe them in the first place? If we do, why should provisions that make the constitution so difficult to amend bind a majority of the electorate?

It is true that the Constitution is a real bitch to amend, and “long-dead tyrants” is a great phrase. Why not have a new Constitutional Convention once a generation—say, every 25 years—to make amendments as necessary, so each generation of Americans could feel that they had input on the document?

Might be fun.

[Pic via]