America’s early system of government, based on the Articles of Confederation, consisted of many flaws including the inability to attend to foreign affairs. Delegates from the colonies attended the Continental Congress to address these issues with the intention to alter the articles. However, the articles were entirely discarded and the Constitution was conceived as a result. During the ratification process, the absence of explicitly stated protections of citizens’ rights was a concern. Thus, James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, drafted the Bill of Rights and it became the first ten amendments. The creation of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights formed the foundation of American government and politics.
The entire American …show more content…
Some reasons for this ideology is that there are fewer margins for judges to allow their own personal beliefs to dictate a decision and it further supports the amendment process. The purpose of the amendment process is to allow changes to the document by an elected body of representatives as time continues. Thus, if society believes a change is needed, then it should be through the democratic way rather than decided by unelected officials. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is a notable example of an originalist. In a fairly recent case, Obergefell v. Hodges, he argued that state bans on same-sex marriage were not unconstitutional nor did they violate the fourteenth amendment. In his dissenting opinion, he argued, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so” (Obergefell v. Hodges). Essentially, Scalia claims that because it wasn’t unconstitutional at the time the fourteenth amendment was ratified, then it shouldn’t be unconstitutional now. However, homosexuality wasn’t nearly as openly talked about then as it is today. Many homosexuals would have been shunned from society if people knew about their sexuality; some would even be put to death. Because our culture has changed so drastically over time, the way we are governed …show more content…
Some reasons for this ideology include not wanting to let past generations control how the government is run today and the amendment process cannot always be relied on to create change. Amending the Constitution is incredibly difficult and thus has only been done seventeen times in the past 220 years. The public cannot always be trusted to make decisions on what is “constitutional” due to implicit biases and personal opinions. During the times these documents were originally written, African-Americans were seen as property, not people, and women were subjected to immense sexism and inequality. These documents were written during a period of incredible discrimination and don’t superbly translate to today, thus the reasons the fourteenth and nineteenth amendments were added. I believe the fact that there can even be amendments to the Constitution alone means that it is not a fixed document. If it can be changed over time due to flaws found within, then the interpretation of the document should also be able to change over
The entire American …show more content…
Some reasons for this ideology is that there are fewer margins for judges to allow their own personal beliefs to dictate a decision and it further supports the amendment process. The purpose of the amendment process is to allow changes to the document by an elected body of representatives as time continues. Thus, if society believes a change is needed, then it should be through the democratic way rather than decided by unelected officials. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is a notable example of an originalist. In a fairly recent case, Obergefell v. Hodges, he argued that state bans on same-sex marriage were not unconstitutional nor did they violate the fourteenth amendment. In his dissenting opinion, he argued, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so” (Obergefell v. Hodges). Essentially, Scalia claims that because it wasn’t unconstitutional at the time the fourteenth amendment was ratified, then it shouldn’t be unconstitutional now. However, homosexuality wasn’t nearly as openly talked about then as it is today. Many homosexuals would have been shunned from society if people knew about their sexuality; some would even be put to death. Because our culture has changed so drastically over time, the way we are governed …show more content…
Some reasons for this ideology include not wanting to let past generations control how the government is run today and the amendment process cannot always be relied on to create change. Amending the Constitution is incredibly difficult and thus has only been done seventeen times in the past 220 years. The public cannot always be trusted to make decisions on what is “constitutional” due to implicit biases and personal opinions. During the times these documents were originally written, African-Americans were seen as property, not people, and women were subjected to immense sexism and inequality. These documents were written during a period of incredible discrimination and don’t superbly translate to today, thus the reasons the fourteenth and nineteenth amendments were added. I believe the fact that there can even be amendments to the Constitution alone means that it is not a fixed document. If it can be changed over time due to flaws found within, then the interpretation of the document should also be able to change over