Framers Vs Constitution

My opinion is why change the constitution. It is basic and easy to follow and Americans have been using this system for a long period of time and its intentions were to be used for centuries. The constitution has kept our country together since it was created and gives individual a basic set of laws that gives them freedom that shouldn’t be changing every year or decade. Changing the amendments undermines the fundamental procedure that the country was created for. Who obtains mass knowledge that has the ability to know what to change in the constitution to make the country better?

Thomas Jefferson was a smart man. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence and also had input into the writing of the Constitution. He once said, "The Constitution belongs to the living and not to the dead." Jefferson said this because the world is ever changing. There are always improvements made everything and more people are born thus more opinions are formed.

All clauses are adapted to the needs of the country at the present time. Change is always necessary to explore better and newer options. The double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment hasn’t significantly changed since the constitution was ratified, but rather the way viewed. The Supreme Court's rulings in Palko v. Connecticut,  Benton v. Maryland and Heath v. Alabama show that there has been a noticeable trend towards various interpretations of the same clause over the last hundred years.

The framers of the United States wrote the Constitution as an alternative government to the Articles of Confederation. The constitution itself has created a fallacy of a direct democracy. The creation of the electoral college, the implement of suffrage for women and african americans, the election of senators, and the power of the judicial branch are examples of how the framework of the new government did not promote a direct democracy. The constitution does, however, create a representative, or indirect, democracy with the articles that were implemented in the creation of the new government. The Constitution does not stem from a distrust of a democracy, rather a way to supervise a free and direct democracy.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was an originalist who has impacted the supreme court in a variety of pertinent case decisions such as King v. Burwell, whose ruling has upheld a key component to the Affordable Care Act. His recent death is unfortunate, but he leaves behind this impact on the court with his originalist perspective and an impact in those around him such as in his fellow Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Scalia based his interpretation off of the theory of originalism. According to Scalia, originalist interpret the constitution as it originally was intended to mean when it was ratified in 1787. This view of the constitution conflicts with the the common interpretation of it today as a “living document,” that changes and adjust

Church lady is similar to Silence Dogood because both are made up characters. Church lady is made by Dana Carvey who insults and ridicules everyone from celebrities to presidents. As for Silence Dogood this character is made by Benjamin Franklin. Also to makes fun such as the people of America and religious people and the abuse of women. Making the Church lady and Silence Dogood very alike as if time has not changed.

US Constitution Longevity The United States Constitution is not just a document. It is an omnipresent artifact of the past and ongoing history for the nation it governs. Passionate arguments were abundant during the drafting of the document on what it should entail and what should be left to interpretation. The Constitution not only served to appease many people at the time of its ratification, but it stays standing as a thriving and dependable document capable of change to serve the people as they see fit.

The Constitution today is used for numerous things in the US government; it is seen as the foundation of our country as it is an answer sheet for right vs wrong, or more so, guilty or not guilty in court. However, this great document of black and white wasn’t unanimously agreed upon by the great figures of America. In fact, the Constitution was highly controversial at the time; ones who proposed and supported the Constitution called themselves the Federalists as ones who were opposing of it were known as the Anti-Federalists. Just as their names are completely opposite, these groups of men had polar opposite ideas.

1 - Critical Assessment : Diversity of Opinion While searching for a creditable website on the prohibition era I stumbled upon https://prohibition.osu.edu/. This website is presented by The Ohio State University and was created by a professor named Austin Kerr. It was created because Kerr understood the educational and usefulness of the internet early on. The goal of this website is to spread awareness and understanding to the prohibition movement of the 1920's. It presents its matter in a professional way, and it still sheds light on the issues and reasons prohibition came under effect.

A Bill of Rights versus an Amendment Although the original ten Amendments of The Constitution are often referred to as the Bill of Rights, there are important differences between an amendment and a bill of rights. The purpose of this paper is to define a bill of rights and an amendment, and then to clarify their differences. Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary Online (1828) defines a bill of rights as “A summary of fundamental rights and privileges guaranteed to a people against violation by the state—used especially of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution.” A bill of rights is a law that protects the rights listed within it from abuse by government or any higher power.