In his article, Professor Sanford Levinson critically examines the Constitution and states that it is a flawed document that should be revised. In order to agree or disagree with his point of view, we should put ourselves in the place of those who are judged and criticized by the author. Therefore, reading this article, I tried to imagine what I would do if I were offered to endorse the Constitution. Would I have signed this document? Are the flaws that Professor Levinson talks about so serious that the articles of the Constitution should be revised?
I want to start this discussion from Jaron Lanier’s quote; “Criticism is always easier than constructive solutions” (n.d.). Professor Levinson criticizes the Constitution for its imperfections.
…show more content…
56). In this regard, he asks, “Are you concerned that the president might have too much power … to spy on Americans without any Congressional or judicial authorization?” (2006, p. 56). Honestly, I am not concerned. I have lived in Israel most of my life. In this small country a terrorist attack may happen at any time and in any place. Therefore, when entering a shopping mall, hospital, or school, the security guard asks to search the contents of your bag. We have never thought that it was an encroachment on our freedom or invasion of privacy because in these circumstances it was necessary for our protection. Obviously, a government has to protect the lives of its citizens. Nowadays, many people in the United States spend too much time discussing the balance between security and liberty. They criticize the government and condemn the security measures. However, they don't want to admit that many terrorist attacks were prevented by wiretapping, monitoring the internet, and so on. Professor Levinson states that it is “spying”. I would call it “a desire to defend the people, to protect their lives and health from the terrorist