Interpreting The Constitution in Modern Times

The Constitution has been around for 228 years since the ratification, which is a long time. Times are very different now as compared to those, many years ago. Today, the world is different in so many aspects such as technological and medical advances, population growth, and minorities rising. These are things that the founding fathers would have never thought to be possible. So nowadays, the Supreme Court has to interpret the Constitution a lot more to be able to decide on subject matters because they have a hard time relating today’s problems to back then. For instance, the Third Amendment which states that citizens will not be forced into providing their home as shelter to the soldiers is not really useful today because it was created for

For instance, in a 2008 case a man Photoshop his porn. This man used a picture of a real girl that he had taken while in vacation with her and her family, and he altered the photo into a fake sex act. He used pictures of adult genitalia and put them on the 11-year-old girl’s body. Previously on that year, the New Hampshire Supreme Court had ruled that fake child pornography does not qualify as child pornography due to the children not actually committing such acts. For this reason, I believe the Constitution should be amended because otherwise, it would be interpreted like the New Hampshire Supreme Court did. Even though the children would not be doing such sexual acts, they are still being exploited therefore, the Constitution should be amended to state clearly the prohibition of child pornography because that way even though some people might argue that it falls under the First Amendment of freedom of speech or that it is implied based on the right of privacy, if it is stated in the Constitution then it cannot be interpreted in some other

Connecticut court case, the possession of child pornography could fall under the right of privacy because the court case stated that the government could not go inside the couples’ house to check if they were using birth control which led them to say that it violated the privacy of someone’s home. Likewise, the possession of child pornography could possibly fall within the same privacy as Griswold v. Connecticut. Additionally, in the 1969 court case of Stanley v. Georgia, they ruled that the government should not have control over the things a person does at the privacy of their home which protected anyone that possessed this obscene material. In this court case, the court used the First and Fourth Amendments to support their decision, and due to that, it is demonstrated that the protection of right to privacy can be applied here. Although, for reasons like this one, the interpretation of the Constitution is not always