The American government, and how it functions, is built upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution serves to define the boundaries in which the government operates. It separates the government into three branches, and declares the powers given to each, also known as the ‘separation of powers’ (Paletz 69). The powers of the state are also listed, and thus establishes the different responsibilities of the national government and the state government. The various Articles within the Constitution structure many different things, like how many terms an official can serve and how a president is to be elected. The Constitution can be amended, or have new bits put on. The first ten amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights.
…show more content…
A fixed document is one where the document is interpreted and followed exactly as stated. A living document is considered to be a changing document, where people may interpret it based on the current time and circumstance (Let’s Talk). The language used in the Constitution is sometimes hard to understand. As a result, people who believe it is a living constitution argue that interpretation should change with the times. Others argue the case of Originalism, the belief that the Constitution must be followed exactly as stated, or that the Constitution is a fixed document. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a supporter of Originalism and argues that it is “the only proper way to interpret the United States Constitution so that judges are not given license to create or eliminate constitutional rights as they see fit (Faller). The solution to understanding what the Constitution says is to look “exclusively to historical documents that reflect the common understanding of the words, the purpose of the clause, and the values predominate in society at the time of passage” and that “no consideration of the modern understanding of the words, purposes, or underlying values is appropriate (Faller)”. While the desire to keep to the Constitution as it was intended is easily understandable, the fact remains that modern day life is very different from 1700-1800 century America. …show more content…
Should we treat the Constitution as a fixed document, following all its rules in exact obedience, even though modern day values regarding gender and racial equality, among other things, have changed significantly? Or should the Constitution be treated as a living document, to be interpreted with modern lenses and adjusted (with careful decision) as American politics change. Is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even relevant in today’s times? The answer differs for many people, but, as stated above, the reality is that the modern times in which we use the Constitution are strikingly different from the time period the Founding Fathers intended it for. From a personal view, the American Constitution should be considered a living document. While it may be 226 years old, the Constitution still serves the American public as it structures the foundations of American politics. However, interpreting the Constitution and the rules it sets forth exactly as detailed is not a clever idea. True progression will only be hindered if we religiously stick to the ‘old ways’. As a country that constantly changes, its governing document should as
A fixed document is one where the document is interpreted and followed exactly as stated. A living document is considered to be a changing document, where people may interpret it based on the current time and circumstance (Let’s Talk). The language used in the Constitution is sometimes hard to understand. As a result, people who believe it is a living constitution argue that interpretation should change with the times. Others argue the case of Originalism, the belief that the Constitution must be followed exactly as stated, or that the Constitution is a fixed document. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a supporter of Originalism and argues that it is “the only proper way to interpret the United States Constitution so that judges are not given license to create or eliminate constitutional rights as they see fit (Faller). The solution to understanding what the Constitution says is to look “exclusively to historical documents that reflect the common understanding of the words, the purpose of the clause, and the values predominate in society at the time of passage” and that “no consideration of the modern understanding of the words, purposes, or underlying values is appropriate (Faller)”. While the desire to keep to the Constitution as it was intended is easily understandable, the fact remains that modern day life is very different from 1700-1800 century America. …show more content…
Should we treat the Constitution as a fixed document, following all its rules in exact obedience, even though modern day values regarding gender and racial equality, among other things, have changed significantly? Or should the Constitution be treated as a living document, to be interpreted with modern lenses and adjusted (with careful decision) as American politics change. Is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even relevant in today’s times? The answer differs for many people, but, as stated above, the reality is that the modern times in which we use the Constitution are strikingly different from the time period the Founding Fathers intended it for. From a personal view, the American Constitution should be considered a living document. While it may be 226 years old, the Constitution still serves the American public as it structures the foundations of American politics. However, interpreting the Constitution and the rules it sets forth exactly as detailed is not a clever idea. True progression will only be hindered if we religiously stick to the ‘old ways’. As a country that constantly changes, its governing document should as