If so, what changes would you recommend? If not, why not?
Constitutions throughout the world are amended once they become law. The Constitution in your state has, almost undoubtedly, been amended many times. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been amended only twenty-seven times in more than two hundred years. That could mean the framers created a document so perfect that it hasn't needed amending. In reality, the small number of amendments over such a long time is a result of the very difficult amending process built into the Constitution. Is the amendment process to difficult? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make the process easier?
Make the Amendment Process Simpler:
When the framers created the U.S. Constitution, the United States (and the world) was much different than it is today. Most residents were farmers. There were no railroads, much less automobiles, and no long-distance communications-not even the telegraph. Technology as we know it did not exist. The framers could not have imagined what issues the government would face in the twenty-first century. We need amendments to our Constitution that take account of all of the new situations facing us today, such as wiretapping, >Update:
PLEASE HELP! I have to write an argumentative essay for or against making the process of amending the U.S. Constitution easier. I'm not even old enough to vote and my college professor gave me this essay to write! I love politics and government, but I honestly don't know how to answer this!
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
No, the process should not become easier. If it were easy to amend the Constitution, can you imagine the ridiculous amendments that would be proposed? Whatever the hot button issue of the day was would become the law of the land. Most of the proposed amendments I've seen are an attempt by someone to impose their personal morality or their group ethos on the nation as a whole. The massive failure of the Prohibition Amendment, with its unintended consequence of giving organized crime a stranglehold on American society that we are still trying to deal with today, should be proof enough that you cannot legislate morality, and that amendment should not become easier. The Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution can be seen as back door amendments, and no reasonable person could deny that the personal views of the Justices affect their decisions. Why else would the political background of every Supreme Court nominee be scrutinized so thoroughly?
If the featherweight politicians we elect to the US Congress can keep the lightweight politicians we elect to the Presidency from packing the Court with bantamweight judicial activists, our Constitution works just fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The constitution is meant as a way to protect our rights while allowing majority rule. If it were easier to change the constitution there would be NO protection against the majority, it would be pure majority rule.
Unchecked Democracy is like two wolves and a hen voting on what to have for dinner.
If the constitution needs to be changed it should be something that merits the hassle that is currently necessary.
If the president were decided by popular vote candidates would campaign in New York and California, while totally ignoring the rest of the country.
Forgive me for saying this, and I'm going to be a little harsh on you --
You're "not even old enough to vote", well thank your professor for the smack in the face. If you don't know much about the government of this country before you start voting, then please either don't vote or move out.
You will have enough trouble being a responsible voter anyway -- your friends are mostlly empty-headed nitwits who think that if a politician promises that a certain tax hike won't affect them, then the tax hike is okay; never mind that that tax hike could collapse the economy. Oh, what, didn't they think of that? So "It's okay to destroy the economy just so long as I don't have to pay higher taxes" makes sense? Good God, we elected a halfwit to the White House on that argument.
*tear hair*
Anyway, I believe what one of my professors offered in Poli Sci is quite true -- The Constitution was not meant to be changed lightly. It can be changed, if the issue is serious enough, but the process was made deliberately difficult and slow. That way it would never be subject to the whims of intellectual fads.
I dislike the whimsy that "the Constitution is a living document" because that's always the excuse used to demand changes (usually through a court, not what the founders envisioned) without having to worry about getting the legislation drafted and ratified by a majority of the states.
NO, but would like to see two amendments passed: 1 Supreme Court would have to make two ruling on every case taken first if question is constitutional as currently done, but than they would have to issue if their ruling was strict interpretation or inferred and every Justice would have to agree on decision or it would be labeled inferred, and ALL issues dealing with constitution that were labeled inferred would be put to states for a vote. All interruptions of federal, sate local laws labeled inferred would be sent back to legislative body for clarification. 2 In Presidential election per would get 2 years for winning popular vote and 2 years Electoral College. The Electoral College would still determine the winner.
no! it is a tribute to the foresight of the Founders that it is so difficult to amend the Constitution; this serves to protect it from temporary whims of those who are addicted to 'social engineering by decree'
the Constitution is a framework of basic principles which have helped us to survive and thrive as a free nation
technology does not alter our rights or change the nature of right and wrong; it merely makes it easier to do both good and evil
No, every amendment to the constitution, whether beneficial or not, caused a lot of social pain to the populous when put into practice.
I don't think any country should have a Constitution, as the first three letters tell us, it's a (CON); We have had a very good law in Britain from way back in time, called 'Common Law', which is taken from 'Natural Law', and covers everything we need for us to live in peace with each other, we still have this Common law as we give our Sovereignty to our Queen, all other laws are only a book of rules called 'Statute laws', these are only affective if we agree to them, as it says in 'Blacks Law Dictionary', Rule of law given by 'consent of the governed', that is you. Our government's want us to believe 'Statute' is law, and have deceived us into accepting them as such, this in its self is illegal, as every police constable take an oath to uphold the Common law, and not to 'enforce' Statute law, this is only a big Con making our police into revenue collectors for a corporation.
I say we burn it and hand out M-16's to everybody instead. Problem solved.