Changing it every time something in the world comes about will get to a point where it’s too much for the government. “A common law Constitution is a "living" Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas”( Strauss, David A). With today’s society and the way things are its hard to say whether or not this document is living or not. I still believe the Constitution is a non-living document. In another article I read, Scalia states that “that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws”( Patel, Ushma).
Furthermore, Paine considered it to be a privilege of the country to decide its legislature, to gain individual rights, and to obtain their freedom. Additionally, Paine approved of the Bill of Rights that were included in the constitution and saw them as something that could be used throughout the world for the good of all. For example, Gordon Duff wrote, “His idea of strengthening the Articles of Confederation was to ‘add a Continental legislature to Congress, to be elected by the several States.’” (Paine qtd. in
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?
Being able to read and interpret sources is a critical aspect of practicing law. Bryan has to stay up to date with new laws and be able to interpret how they can be used in a legal setting, both in support of your case and against it. He specifically sites the recent judicial decision that marriage is a right afforded to all United States citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Arguments can be made claiming that the court’s interpretation of the constitution is unlawful and that the Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce such a regulation. However, there are many ways in which an attorney can support that
Within both constitutions there are two houses, in Iroquois there are two groups who look at decisions just like the American but in the American Constitution the president makes the final decision. In this essay I have went over the similarities and differences between the Iroquois and the American constitution. Throughout this essay I’ve went over simple and elaborate differences, some subtle some intriguingly different. As you read over an essay about our grounded constitution; and the background over how the Iroquois gave us our guidelines for the constitution, you will be amazed at the similarities throughout it. In history it can be amazing to see how it honestly does repeat itself.
Edwin Meese III held quite a different view as compared to that of William Brennan. Meese held the opinion of strictly following exactly what is stated in the Constitution of the United States, otherwise known as fidelity. In his essay he focuses on fidelity often. Edwin Meese portrays his belief in his essay as he quoted Justice Joseph Story, “The First and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.” (Meese). Although the parties may have written certain things of their time that may not even apply to future situations from that point on, Meese continued to hold the belief that what was written is really meant and is not to be interpreted
Most Americans today still treasure and hang on to these amendments. For the ones that do not seem to care we do need to absorb these values to take part in civil engagement- which also involves motivation so that we stay a united country. And to do this we must obey these rights and not take advantage of them. If these rights which I find today have not been revised as others have. We will take away and lose our American heritage.
The First Amendment was accomplished on the year of 1791 and it’s the one of the important Amendments in the Bill of Rights. It talks about the protection for all people rights, such as the freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly which made our country to be different, unique and to protect our rights as American citizens. The First Amendment also allows the people to protest and to speak their opinion. Understanding the rights that been given by the Congress is the importance by the United States citizens. Each citizen must respect their rights.
Two changes I would make in the constitution both fall into the second article. This is the article concerning the presidential election process and duties. While other articles could of course be modified in some way or another, I find that the two changes I came up with could be agreed with by almost everyone. I tried to make these decision not based on how I feel about politics and my beliefs, but instead I made my decisions based on what is best for everybody. I wanted to put my political affiliation aside for this question because in the grand scheme of things what I will suggest are things that could legitimately be addressed without too much complication.
It’s really important to know your Constitutional Rights. Throughout life, people that have a title felt like it was okay to take away people constitutional rights. Still today in some parts of the world you do not have the freedom of speech, people cannot worship who they want or either gather with a group of friends but in America you have somewhat freedom. When people say they don’t have any rights they are not telling the truth. We have rights to protect ourselves and those around us.