The Pros And Cons Of The Constitution

1129 Words5 Pages

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, it is a document that outlines how the government is structured and how it operates. It was adopted on September 17, 1787, by our founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention, and later ratified by the states. The Constitution is divided into seven articles, each addressing a different aspect. The first three articles establish the three branches, the legislative branch that is responsible for making laws, the executive branch is responsible for enforcing laws, and judicial branch is responsible for interpreting laws. Article IV addresses the relationship between the states and the federal government. Article V outlines the process for amending the Constitution, Article VI establishes …show more content…

In my opinion this amendment is one of the main reasons why the US government has been able to maintain a strong and free democracy. For the most part I would say the American dream is dead, but this one amendment is what keeps it sparked, and could make become achievable. Being able to express your ideas, opinions, and practice your faith without fear of censorship or repression is a luxury considering this right is denied to many people throughout the world. Another luxury is the press which is essential for informing citizens about their government and the issues affecting their lives. A free and independent press helps to ensure that people have access to the right information they need to make informed decisions, which is critical for maintaining an open and democratic society. The First Amendment also protects the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. This is important for making sure that people can come together to advocate for change and hold their government accountable for its …show more content…

In Article III, the constitution only requires that a Supreme Court justice be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, without specifying any particular qualifications. In the absence of objective criteria, the selection of a justice could become more focused on partisan politics becoming more politicized. This weakness then opens the door to the possibility of unqualified prospects being appointed to the highest court in the land, and could result in decisions being made by individuals who lack the necessary legal and constitutional knowledge and experience to do so effectively. Ultimately this can lead to citizens undermining the integrity of the Court and diminish the public's trust in its decisions. Apart of no qualifications, there is no age requirements, resulting in serving a life term as a supreme court justice. This can result in justices holding onto outdated views and failing to keep up with changing societal norms and legal developments. Also this could limit opportunities for diversity on the Court. If a justice remains on the Court for many decades, it may be difficult to achieve a balance of representation across different demographics, such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity. This is an issue because it can compromise the effectiveness and fairness of the Supreme

Open Document