Back in the early days of independant America there had been an ethical dilemma on whether or not they should ratify The U.S constitution. The main two arguments were whether citizens chose to maintain the status quo, or switch to a more centralized government. The two debates were backed up by James madison who wrote the Federalist No.10 for ratification and Patrick Henry who gave a speech against it. In the document James warns about how “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual.” referring to someone or a group of people who could possibly create unique factions between on another and disrupt a potential republic.
For example, the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments” (U.S. Const. am. 8), but does not go on to say what punishments can be considered cruel and unusual. In this way, the constitution sets out the fundamental principles, while allowing the people of various generations to interpret the specificities of the articles. This has led to the constitution being considered a “living constitution” – a document that evolves and adapts over time, changing to fit new circumstances as they emerge, without being formally amended through the special amendment process (Strauss, 2010).
Article Five of the United States Constitution clearly spells out ways to amend the document as so desired by Congress or the States. Regarding this specific topic, there have been recent debates over whether there should be a Constitutional Convention comprised of state legislatures developed for the sole purpose of bypassing congress in amending the Constitution. Before I watched the debate, I decided against this notion as I personally do not have any knowledge, presently, of how to amend the constitution. Therefore, there should not be a convention to do just that. Although the opposing side brought some real issues to light regarding the ideas of “Draining the Swamp”, using “True Democracy” for one person equals one vote/one state equals one vote, and stating that re-electing new congressional officials hasn’t changed anything either.
The young nation, barely three years old, was dying. Ten years after the Declaration of Independence, America was struggling to hold itself together. The Articles of Confederation, designed during the Revolution, demolished even the inkling of monarchy by forcing the national government to abide by the whim of the states. During the Revolutionary War the states held together out of necessity, but after the war, the states became hostile to their neighbors. It quickly became evident that a serious crisis has settled upon the United States.
The composers of the U.S. Constitution needed to empower government activity; the designers of the Texas Constitution needed to incapacitate government activity. While the U.S. Constitution makes a unitary official that packs official power in the president, the Texas Constitution makes a plural official that scatters official power over numerous chose workplaces, along these lines dividing the official branch of government and averting control over the official branch from gathering in any one individual or office. One purpose of intrigue, be that as it may, concern the CEO's energy to veto bills go by the governing body. The detail veto in the Texas Constitution permits the senator to veto particular things contained inside apportionments
However, the new trend has been to make the document mean what you want or to just disregard it and issue new laws. The modern view is that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is (p.30)”. Sutherland throughout the book that this is assumption not correct, because if this were true, than the final authority would rest with the judges, not with the people. This line of thinking is dangerous, as it makes those tasked with interpreting the Constitution essentially able to edit it to say whatever they want, regardless of what the document actually says on a matter. With the judges making wild rulings about freedoms and laws, they are undermining and assuming the duties of Congress, something they are clearly prohibited from
The government of the United States of America had its infrastructure set in stone in the span of the year 1787 (National Constitution Center, n.d.) when this country’s founding fathers put their futures into their own hands and laid down various ground rules for the government to follow by constructing the United States Constitution. Among the words written in the U.S. Constitution, Articles I, II, and III records the given powers of the United States Congress, President, and the three branches of the national government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. These rules give many abilities to these parts of the government, but there are also restrictions given to them as well. Through the United States Constitution, the Congress is given
Ever since the Constitution was written, chaos has ensued. The states have split into two sides: the Anti-federalists, who oppose the Constitution, and the Federalists, who support the Constitution—both of whom have argued in writings, such as the Federalist Papers. Anti-federalists rightfully believe that a president has enough power to become a tyrant, similar to British kings in the past. Therefore, they request for a Bill of Rights to be added, ensuring that the citizens have power in government as well, in order for them to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-federalists are supported by Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Massachusetts, while the Federalists are prominent in Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey,
I feel that the US Constitution is somewhat outdated, and is in need of a revision. As everybody knows, the world has changed a lot in the past 250 years. These changes are things like transportation, total number of people in the world, and major things like the internet and technology. The events and problems that the Constitution solved years ago are a lot different than the problems that we face today. However, some of the more universal and basic rules of the constitution should not be subject to change because they still apply to today.
The United States constitution is a document that, although it’s over 200 years old, still makes up the foundations of the United States government. The only reason it’s possible for a country to maintain a set of laws for 200 years is because the Supreme Court is allowed to make amendments to these laws as needed. This makes the constitution a living document. Throughout history, some of the country’s most famous court cases have been responsible for these amendments. One major case that affected the U.S. Constitution was Miranda v. Arizona in 1966.
The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution for the Americans, but it had a negative impact overall on the newly formed nation. According to the article, “Articles of Confederation”, it mentions that in the Articles of Confederation, there is a rule that says that the states can only tax the colonists. This resulted in the central government never having any money that they need to pay off debt, which are mostly to soldiers, and they have to hope that the states give them money, but they usually do not,and that is bad. In addition to that, the article, “Articles of Confederation” also claims that another rule written in the Articles of Confederation is each individual state could make their own law and they did not have to follow
The Constitution of the United States of America is commonly known as a living document. As such, changes in governmental policy are expected, and occur frequently. However, many rights Americans enjoy today were interpreted by a specific branch of the federal government. A considerable portion of the federal government's power is either implied within the Constitution, or has been added through amendments.
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
The Constitution is the most sacred document the United States has; it profoundly affects how we run our government and how we view our democracy. If the people believe the government is not running well and the issue
The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will. - Chief Justice John Marshall [19 U.S. 64] THE COMMON PERCEPTION is that the Constitution has endured essentially un-changed for more than 220 years and should remain that way except for an occa¬sional, narrowly-defined amendment. For that matter, neither the Congress, nor the presidency, nor the Supreme Court has changed much pro forma. The limited number and scope of formal amendments demonstrates this.
