Changing the Constitution of the United States is against what the founding fathers created this nation for. To achieve this, they fought for their freedom and created a more stable government. The words of the constitution are those in which we live by should not stray far from originality. Before an amendment is added to the Constitution, it must undergo series of votes. Two thirds of the states must agree with what the new amendment is proposing. The constitution is not a document that is easily changed, and that is how our founding fathers intended it to be. “The Constitution which at anytime exists, until changed by an explicit in authentic act of the whole people, is secretly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right …show more content…
They broke away from England not knowing how they wanted to run a country, but knowing that they wanted something different than England. The Constitution is a difficult document to change for a reason. The more amendments we add, the further we stray from the original laws that they founding fathers wrote. The congress can’t simply decide that they want to change the constitution. It must go through a rigorous process in order for the majority of the states (38 of them) to agree on a new amendment. “Whether amendments are first proposed by the states or congress, 3/4ths of the states must ratify (or approve) them before they become part of the constitution.” (Additional Amendments-no author available) State’s and Congress must agree on the new law. Not just state representatives have a say in this, but also the people of those states because our government was formed in a way that the people help run the country. Amendments shouldn’t be easy to add to the constitution. That’s the way the founding fathers meant for it to be. When they decided on the laws that they wanted their new country to have, they didn’t want them to be easily reversed, however; they didn’t want it to be so difficult to change that it would cause another revolution. “The makers of the constitution wanted to create a firm basis for the exercise of governmental power. However, they were wise enough to know that if they …show more content…
Our founding fathers wrote the constitution quite open ended, however it is specific enough that you can’t have a personal interpretation. There are also some things that they wouldn’t have ever imagined would exist, therefore couldn’t make a law against it. Such as abortion. “Passed by congress in 1976 the Hyde amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive healthcare services provided to low income people by the federal government through Medicaid...At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger by physical disorder, illness, or injury.” The Constitution should not have amendments in place for things such as religious beliefs, or for very personal issues. There are some issues that the government just shouldn’t have any say in. The right to bear arms is a highly debated topic. It’s also a very touchy subject with both parties. If you own a gun, you should have a background check to make sure that you are mentally sound enough to own it. The second amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (no author
There is much debate in political theory about the definition of a constitution. Generally, it is considered as a “single governing document”. If that is the case, then the U.S. Constitution is the oldest in the world (Berry, 2011). The Framers, upon writing it, aimed to create a document that would stand the test of time. Despite changes in population size, racial and religious components, and even the modern day technology, the objective has clearly been achieved. Elkins claims that this is primarily due to its flexibility. Judicial review interprets the document with the rapidly changing society in mind (as cited in Garza, 2008). Many state constitutions, on the other hand, have not survived as long. Since many have been written with specific people and localities in mind, they have not been able to adapt to change well. Louisiana, for example, has had 11 state constitutions. It is common today, for states to consider overhauling their current constitutions (Morris, Henson, & Fackler, 2011).
When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste.
A great deal of bills have been written and passed as legislation under the pretense that they would better outline the citizen’ rights and ensure their freedoms. Yet occasionally these laws are created with disregard to what is stated in our Constitution. At times they distort and twist the original meaning of the work, counter acting the purpose of creating the Amendments. The intention of Amendments was to be an outline of the rights of the people. They were to ensure that there would not be a repeat of what the framers had experienced when they set out on their mission to draft a document that would govern our country for years to come. Little by little our elected officials have been discounting our Constitution. There are many resulting repercussions; the most dear to everyone being the individuals rights. The end result of these interpretations being that our people are hurt, as we are slowly being stripped of our rights as U.S. citizens.
Everything that was passed by Congress had to be approved by 9/13 states. From the beginning of the American Revolution, Congress felt the need for a stronger union. Congress had no control over foreign commerce, and it could pass laws, but not force the states to comply with them.
The Founding Fathers accepted that the basic rights of individuals, rights to life, liberty, and private property, were not arranged by the government, and so when the Founders composed the Constitution, they were not surrendering new rights to people. It was just to create a steady form of representative republican government that would assure that the basic rights of mankind were less likely to be compacted upon. The objective of the Framers was not to make a extreme form of “democracy” (which the Founders reviled for its strong inclination to throw off the rule of law) in which everybody had the equal kind of say in government or in which nobody felt as if they were in a minority.
The United States Constitution contains the “Necessary and Proper Clause” which grants Congress the power to enact statutory laws that are “necessary and proper” for carrying out the enumerated powers (US Const. art I, sec. 8, claus. 18). Texas has no equivalent to the “Necessary and Proper Clause” in its constitution. This limits the legislature to powers only specifically written, and thus driving the requirement for frequent constitutional amendments for even minor legislative changes.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This statement basically means that people should be able to own guns for their own security and that right should not be taken away. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because the creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms. It was also added to the Constitution because shortly after it was ratified, James Madison wanted to give more power to the state militia and to give more power to the people to give them the ability to fight back against the Federalists and the tyrannical government they were creating. After fighting off the British, the Second Amendment was created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against controlling government and protect themselves with their own weapons.
We are entitled to the right to bear arms and taking that right away would be unconstitutional. Guns are not the cause for all the violence and crimes that have happened over the years. They do not increase the death rates. Children are more likely to die in a car or swimming pool accident then gun related deaths (VerBruggen). The weapons are needed for protection and hunting, owning a gun is not unconstitutional Taking the Second Amendment away or changing it would be unconstitutional and Un American, It is like any other right. This right is one of the reasons why we are the land of the free and home of the brave. “Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” - Benjamin Franklin
... 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.
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Amendment II 1791)
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.
The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment II
The constitution and the words written on it have been interpreted and twisted so many different ways by people in and out of the government to where now it is barley the same document it was back in 1788 when it was ratified. The constitution is not followed in the same way it was which means we are not following the constitution anymore and because of that, the U.S. should not even be following or even trying to follow the constitution anymore because it is not the same document that it was. The constitution is is interpreted so many different ways because of its broadness that almost anyone in the government can have their ¨own constitution¨, it is extremely outdated and there are amendments that are pointless or don't help present day ideals,