Amending America The Constitution being a “living document” refers to the idea that the Constitution is open to interpretation outside of the intentions of the framers. The concept relates to the fact that society is constantly changing and therefore the principals of how the society is run must adapt to the ongoing changes. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia discouraged the idea of the living Constitution, declaring that the Constitution should only be understood in the terms of the people who wrote it. This objective is known as “originalism”, and it depends on the angles of the Founding Fathers as the only analysis of the Constitution. Laws and precedents are constantly being added and modified to conform to contemporary political, …show more content…
Ferguson was interpreted in a way that it would still be upheld through segregated facilities (Wolff). In the case of Brown vs. Board of Education, however, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment found segregation of public schools unconstitutional (Strauss). The Constitution must have been living in order for it to be reinterpreted and to affirm a precedent that was set as constitutionally sound, as unconstitutional. As Strauss says, “A living constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without formally being amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes; there is no realistic alternative to a living constitution.” According to Strauss, and proven by this example, the constitution must be living because it will eventually contradict itself, and when the constitution is unconstitutional what are the laws, and what are our …show more content…
It is impossible to interpret a text with no notion of these social contentions, in compliance with current demands. David A Strauss, Professor at Chicago University and author of “The Living Constitution” asked the proper question, “why should we allow people who lived long ago, in a different world, to decide fundamental questions about our government and society today?” There will always be a need for the government to adapt to the evolving society. The framers of the Constitution intentionally created the text to be profoundly vague and ambiguous to allow for flexibility and loose interpretation (Hammer). Without the ability to reanalyze and break down the Constitution with the adjustment of time, the rights and demands of the citizens could not be successfully
In the 1954 court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation of schools was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment (Justia, n.d.). During the discussion, the separate but equal ruling in 1896 from Plessy v. Ferguson was found to cause black students to feel inferior because white schools were the superior of the two. Furthermore, the ruling states that black students missed out on opportunities that could be provided under a system of desegregation (Justia, n.d.). So the process of classification and how to balance schools according to race began to take place.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
Through the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and thought have been implemented up until this point. However this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government more so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the duty to oversee the government, yet so many times they are disinterested and only seem to have an opinion when the government’s implications affect them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses question when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.
This amendment was created during the reconstruction phase attempting to reunite this country after the brutal battles of the Civil War. Henretta and Brody emphasize how the Republicans were progressing in a direction to sanctify the civil rights of the black community. These authors contend the vital organ of the document was the wording in the first section. It said “all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens.” No state could abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”; deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; or deny anyone “the equal protection of the laws.”2 Imagine the problems that could arise in the country if repeal were to come to a realization. Henretta and Brody point out how the wording in section 1 of the document was written in a way that could be construed as inexplicit. The reason for this was for the judicial system and Congress could set an example for balance in due process here in the
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within
views one can take. The Constitution can be viewed as a "living document" or in
... document and not the will of those in powers is tremendous. Except for the 17 of the 27 amendments that make part of the United States of America constitution, the constitution has remained largely the same. What has changed, and continues to change, is the interpretation of some parts that have expanded to include contexts that were not envisioned by our founding fathers. It is truly remarkable that the Constitution has sustained many powerful historical events over time and today remains pretty much intact.
Thomas Jefferson once said "It is every Americans ' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."[1] In honor of that sentiment, the following are a few thoughts on the preamble Constitution of the United States.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
Interpreting the Constitution as you see it, is very difficult because of the fact is when time changes, people change. What I mean by this statement is that different generations have different interpretations of what people believe that the Constitution says that they can do. Which leads to people becoming a textualism which means that the judges of the Supreme Court try to decide that they can make news laws, even though their job is just to interpret the laws. They figure since the Constitution was written in 1788, that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, you have people that believe that you should interpret the laws that come in with using the Constitution the same way judges did way back then. An example of a person that is a textualism would be Supreme Court Antonin Scalia and a person that is a originalist is Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. In this paper, I am comparing and contrast, both of these judges to determine which person and their argument is right.
“The Constitution leaves in its wake a long legacy, forever shaping the fate of many other countries. Whether those countries are currently in a state favorable to liberty or not, it is undeniable that the U.S. Constitution’s principles have caused people to rethink how to organize their political systems” (Hang). Time has only added value to the Constitution, for every time we reference it in our lives it is a testament of our trust and loyalty in what it states about our rights as individuals and the role the government plays in our lives. When it was written, the Constitution was the law of the land that gave people rights they had previously lived without. Similarly, we live lives of choice and independence because of the same document while other countries limit all the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Simply put, “The Constitution is important because it protects individual freedom, and its fundamental principles govern the United States. The Constitution places the government 's power in the hands of the citizens. It limits the power of the government and establishes a system of checks and balances”
In the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency in 1860, South Carolinian officials signed a Declaration of Secession that renounced their ties to the United States and marked the creation of the Confederate States of America. Less than six months later, at the command of the Confederate president Jefferson Davis, troops were dispatched to assault Fort Sumter, a Union fort in the South Carolinian port of Charleston. This was the battle that signified the division of a nation. This was the culmination of years of conflict and debate between northern and southern state officials, including topics such as the interpretation of the United States Constitution, economic policies that would only help either the north or the south, and
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there