In his article, Professor Sanford Levinson critically examines the Constitution and states that it is a flawed document that should be revised. In order to agree or disagree with his point of view, we should put ourselves in the place of those who are judged and criticized by the author. Therefore, reading this article, I tried to imagine what I would do if I were offered to endorse the Constitution. Would I have signed this document? Are the flaws that Professor Levinson talks about so serious that the articles of the Constitution should be revised?
I want to start this discussion from Jaron Lanier’s quote; “Criticism is always easier than constructive solutions” (n.d.). Professor Levinson criticizes the Constitution for its imperfections.
…show more content…
56). In this regard, he asks, “Are you concerned that the president might have too much power … to spy on Americans without any Congressional or judicial authorization?” (2006, p. 56). Honestly, I am not concerned. I have lived in Israel most of my life. In this small country a terrorist attack may happen at any time and in any place. Therefore, when entering a shopping mall, hospital, or school, the security guard asks to search the contents of your bag. We have never thought that it was an encroachment on our freedom or invasion of privacy because in these circumstances it was necessary for our protection. Obviously, a government has to protect the lives of its citizens. Nowadays, many people in the United States spend too much time discussing the balance between security and liberty. They criticize the government and condemn the security measures. However, they don't want to admit that many terrorist attacks were prevented by wiretapping, monitoring the internet, and so on. Professor Levinson states that it is “spying”. I would call it “a desire to defend the people, to protect their lives and health from the terrorist
The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil
In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan).
James Madison, founding father and fourth president of United States wrote the federalists paper number 10 in favor of the constitution. He believes that constitution is the only way to keep balance and control any problem this country faces. He uses faction as an example and talks about how it can cause problems but most importantly how to deal with the problems. He defines faction as groups of people who came together to promote their own interests and opinions. He said that these groups take advantage of the public and violate their rights.
“On the Faults of the Constitution” was a speech written by Benjamin Franklin to try to explain the weaknesses of the Constitution. In his speech, he states some of things about the Constitution that he believed were weak, but I also realized that he also started to point out certain strengths in the Constitution. In certain parts of the speech, the beginning, Benjamin Franklin basically explains how the Constitution is not really good, that it is bad and tries to explain the weaknesses, but towards the end, Benjamin Franklin’s viewpoint goes off of what he wanted to first state. In the beginning of his speech, Benjamin Franklin says, “I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present; but, sir, I am not sure I shall never approve of it, for, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
For example, it says in Document 5, “ At least...give the proposal Constitution a fair trial, and mend it with time, occasion, and experience may [require].” This shows Americans shouldn’t judge the Constitution before hand, but still give it a chance. Even if Americans want to change the Constitution, they can. Moreover, it states in Document 5, “ Reflect that the [Constitution] comes recommended to you by men and fellow citizens who… love their liberty and their country.” This shows the Constitution was accepted by people that care about the citizens of America.
DBQ Essay The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal
Robert Yates was an Anti federalist and did not support the constitution. He arrived at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, but decided to leave early due to the fact that he did not believe in adopting a federal Constitution and left on July 10, 1787. He did not believe in a strong central government and did not have a position in the new Federal Government. He was against any concession to the federal congress that might lessen the sovereignty of the states. He stated this all in a letter with John Langston that was written to Governor George Clinton of New York, stating the dangers of centralizing power and urging opposition to the adoption of the Constitution.
The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.
Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
What are the Historical Influences of United States Constitution? It is known that people all over the world have come to the United States, to create a better life for their families and themselves. The United States is known for having the best form of government for people to be included and have a say in their beliefs. What many people do not know is, what influenced the United States Constitution and the founding fathers in writing.
Two suggestions both originate in the second article involved the presidency. One was to rid of the electoral college and the other to change the way vice presidential candidates are elected. Protecting constitutional rights is a lot more of a complicated idea than figuring out what could be changed in the Constitution. Because the text of the Constitution can often be interpreted in different ways, it is hard to decipher what the rights we exactly have
Why was the Constitution a controversial document even as it was being written? Established in 1787 The Constitution was a controversial document because it was a document that could both solve the nation’s hardships and warped the Republican foundation. The Constitution on one hand would give the people a voice and the other would control the nation through a monarchy system. One of the controversies that arose from the creation of the Constitution was the question of management of commerce.
Established on September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed rights for its citizens. The Constitution also represents the value and principles of democracy and republicanism that the United States of American stands by. This means that the Constitution regards to the American citizen as something that is held to deserve meaning the importance, worth, or usefulness of something. It also means its citizens come first in order of importance. The Constitution represents the value and principles of democracy and republicanism by stressing liberty and inalienable rights as central values, making the people as a whole sovereign, rejecting inherited political power, expecting citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.