The Constitution and Bill of Rights
Written in the 18th century, the Constitution and Bill of Rights revolutionized what it really meant to be an American and live in America. The Constitution came first but lacked the support of state delegates “George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,” (Paletz ,Owen, Cook) due to the lack of a Bill of Rights, which was then written in 1787 to reassure the people of America that their rights were still intact and weren’t being taken over by a tyrannical government system. At the time, these documents were a radical idea to have and were celebrated as a sign that America was really its own independent nation. However, in today’s day and age it’s come into question whether these documents …show more content…
In order for those changes to have been enacted, we need to have a living, flexible Constitution that is designed to allow for changes as the world progresses. It was written to be changed without having to be amended, a difficult process (Strauss), which could severely hinder progress in ensuring everyone’s rights and liberties. Some argue however, that the Constitution is a fixed document, and adhere to the idea of originalism, which means the document’s meanings and interpretations should be interpreted exactly the same as when they were enacted 200 years ago. One popular advocate for this idea was recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that “…originalism is the only proper way to interpret the United States Constitution so that judges aren’t given a license to create or eliminate constitutional rights as they see fit” (Faller). To further elaborate, in looking at the Constitution, a judge must look at the words and meanings of the document, not in a modern sense applying it to today’s day and age but instead must look at it as if they were 200 years in the past. Many criticize this idea, seeing as if people were going to interpret the entire document that way they would/could be living as people were 200 years ago, instead of in today’s modern society. People who believe in originalism and fear too much governmental power in altering the Constitution can easily solve their problems, as the idea of a living, flexible Constitution provides an easy solution to balancing power and keeping up with current times. In having a living Constitution, when looking to alter it, the government looks “…to text, history, precedent, purposes, consequences, and
Written in the 18th century, the Constitution and Bill of Rights revolutionized what it really meant to be an American and live in America. The Constitution came first but lacked the support of state delegates “George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,” (Paletz ,Owen, Cook) due to the lack of a Bill of Rights, which was then written in 1787 to reassure the people of America that their rights were still intact and weren’t being taken over by a tyrannical government system. At the time, these documents were a radical idea to have and were celebrated as a sign that America was really its own independent nation. However, in today’s day and age it’s come into question whether these documents …show more content…
In order for those changes to have been enacted, we need to have a living, flexible Constitution that is designed to allow for changes as the world progresses. It was written to be changed without having to be amended, a difficult process (Strauss), which could severely hinder progress in ensuring everyone’s rights and liberties. Some argue however, that the Constitution is a fixed document, and adhere to the idea of originalism, which means the document’s meanings and interpretations should be interpreted exactly the same as when they were enacted 200 years ago. One popular advocate for this idea was recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that “…originalism is the only proper way to interpret the United States Constitution so that judges aren’t given a license to create or eliminate constitutional rights as they see fit” (Faller). To further elaborate, in looking at the Constitution, a judge must look at the words and meanings of the document, not in a modern sense applying it to today’s day and age but instead must look at it as if they were 200 years in the past. Many criticize this idea, seeing as if people were going to interpret the entire document that way they would/could be living as people were 200 years ago, instead of in today’s modern society. People who believe in originalism and fear too much governmental power in altering the Constitution can easily solve their problems, as the idea of a living, flexible Constitution provides an easy solution to balancing power and keeping up with current times. In having a living Constitution, when looking to alter it, the government looks “…to text, history, precedent, purposes, consequences, and