The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.”
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.
A constitution is the fundamental law by which a nation or a state is governed and organized. It establishes the framework of government, delegates the powers and duties of governmental bodies, and defines the relationship between the government and their citizens. Texas current constitution was adopted in 1876, and since then Texas voters have approved more than 467 amendments to this document. The word “amendment” is defined as the act or process of changing the words or the meaning of a law or document (constitution). Throughout this essay I will explain the rules for amending the Texas Constitution, the attempts made at constitutional reforms during the 1970s, explain why constitutional reforms were attempted and why it ultimately failed.
Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society.
“The purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government not the American people.” – The Federalist Papers. Our government is not the exact same way it was from the very beginning of its creation. It has changed dramatically over the course of about two-hundred years, as said in the video, “The Constitution must change for challenges in the future.” Truthfully, it has been changed and adapted to meet the ever changing needs of our society. In the very beginning or the “birth,” of our United States government we did not have a constitution, in fact the democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The American government went through several trial and errors to see what worked and what did not before creating and establishing the U.S. Constitution.
James Madison, founding father and fourth president of United States wrote the federalists paper number 10 in favor of the constitution. He believes that constitution is the only way to keep balance and control any problem this country faces. He uses faction as an example and talks about how it can cause problems but most importantly how to deal with the problems.
The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
The Constitution of the United States was formed 223 years ago. Since 1787, a lot has changed. We grew as a country, technology advanced, and we elected 43 different presidents. One of witch, being the first African-American President in history. Due to its age, some may argue that the Constitution is irrelevant to today’s problems. However, the Constitution is relevant. The Constitution is still relevant today because, it guarantees rights and freedoms to citizens, gives our country guidelines, and prevents a government from having too much power. America’s past, present, and future are bound and kept free by the Constitution. That is what makes the Constitution relevant. In a few words, the Constitution is the United States.
Small changes in the Constitution could improve the document for the better, but changing it could be the challenge. With only few changes that have been made to the document in the last few hundred years, that shows that the document is fairly strong on its own and does not need much improvement. Two suggestions both originate in the second article involved the presidency. One was to rid of the electoral college and the other to change the way vice presidential candidates are elected.