Changes In The Constitution Essay, Research Paper
Proposed Changes in the
The Constitution is one of the greatest paperss of all time written in American history. Rights for all people are included, and everyone is considered to be equal. This took many old ages to carry through, and the United States of America are evidently proud of the manner they brought everyone together. However, as great of a papers that the Constitution is, there are many facets about it that are outdated or wear & # 8217 ; t give rights to people that deserve them. In all great pieces of literature, there is ever something that can be changed in order to do it better. In the instance of the Constitution, the same thing is true. Certain parts of the Constitution demand to be rewritten in order for it to maintain up with our altering society. The Constitution consists of 27 Amendments. Some of them are great, and truly give the people the rights they deserve. But other Amendments, which will be discussed in this paper, are at a demand for a revision.
Since the beginning of clip, the human race has been fighting with the construct of everyone being considered equal. The Puritans, for case, came to this state because they didn & # 8217 ; t experience as though they were being treated every bit in the Great Britain. Their spiritual beliefs were looked down upon, and they wanted to be able to idolize whomever they wanted to. If you look in the Bill of Rights in our Fundamental law, you will detect that the really first Amendment provinces that, & # 8220 ; Congress shall do no jurisprudence esteeming an constitution of faith, or forbiding the free exercising thereof. & # 8221 ; ( www.usconstitution ) . This issue was an of import affair to the American people, and that was why they created it into a national jurisprudence saying that everyone had the right to pattern any faith. And so, 27 national Torahs were created in hopes to hold everyone be equal.
There are many parts of the Constitution that are really good and should stay in. For case, the 13th Amendment in which bondage was abolished should most decidedly remain in the Constitution. If it was taken out, so people would get down to ain slaves once more and claim that there was no jurisprudence against it any longer. All three of the Civil War Amendments was a large measure towards human equality because now inkinesss were eventually given rights. Another measure towards equality was the 19th Amendment, adult females & # 8217 ; s right to vote. Womans were eventually allowed to vote in elections because of this Amendment. After this Amendment, every American citizen was eventually considered & # 8220 ; human & # 8221 ; by the Constitution.
There are besides many parts of the Constitution refering the authorities that should stay. The 23rd Amendment eventually allowed the citizens of Washington D.C. to vote in the election. A prohibition on the canvass revenue enhancement was issued three old ages subsequently to promote more people to take part in the national elections. Before this Amendment came out, hapless people didn & # 8217 ; t want to hold to pass their money to travel ballot, and so they stayed place. The 26th Amendment ensured that anyone 18 old ages or older could take part in the election. Even the other countries of the Constitution, non including the 27 Amendments, are good written and do certain that the United States has a strong, centralized, and just authorities. Checks and balances is the system our authorities is based on to do certain that each subdivision of authorities is equal and that no subdivision is higher than the other.
However, there are some defects in this mission to equality. In the same Amendment as the freedom of faith, a freedom to the imperativeness was granted. & # 8221 ; Or foreshortening the freedom of the press. & # 8221 ; The Constitution gives power to the imperativeness to travel out and hold the legal freedom to compose about whomever they wanted. When the Constitution was written, I think they regarded a free imperativeness as about a 4th subdivision of authorities, invariably maintaining checks on the authorities & # 8217 ; s activities and actions. This is decidedly a good portion of the first Amendment. However, many people take advantage of this right, including tabloid documents, telecasting, and the paparazzi. Some people might state that this rubbish is a little monetary value to pay to guarantee that any intelligence organisation can describe freely on the activities of the authorities. However, what about the people outside of the authorities that are being exploited? The paparazzi is responsible for 100s of images taken of famous persons without their consent. Should the imperativeness have the right to occupy people & # 8217 ; s privateness for the mere interest of public amusement?
The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights provinces that, & # 8220 ; A good regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to maintain and bear Weaponries, shall non be infringed. & # 8221 ; The Constitution is saying that everyone has the right to have a handgun, but it does non give the legal right for a individual to have a atomic arm. If the writers of the Constitution had any precognition of the types of arms people would be able to purchase presents, they may hold wanted to rethink this Amendment. At the clip of the authorship of the Constitution, citizen reserves, what finally became the National Guard, were a major portion of what made this state free. Then, weaponries, or more justly, muzzle-loaded muskets, were an indispensable portion of the defence of that freedom. The writers did non desire their authorities, or any future authorities, to take from the people their ability to support themselves against attackers, from the interior or out. However, many people take advantage of this Amendment and perpetrate offenses with their pistols. The guns were made legal so that any individual could experience safe and protect themselves. If this Amendment was changed and the pistols were made illegal, how would one protect themselves? Would offense rates go down, or would people merely happen new ways to ache each other? & # 8220 ; If everyone owned a gun, so the figure of deceases would travel down. Once person started shot, he would be shot immediately. Finally, people will halt seeking to ache each other and everyone would be safer. & # 8221 ; ( Anonymous ) .
One major issue that has been on people & # 8217 ; s heads is the presidential term of office. The President of the United States is limited to two footings, with a upper limit of 10 old ages in the place. This Amendment was created because the people were fearful that the President would go a tyrant, or our authorities would go a parallel to a monarchy. Even before this Amendment was issued in 1951, the two twelvemonth term was an unwritten jurisprudence. Since the presidential term of George Washington, merely one thing could be said to be wholly consistent -that no President had the occupation for more than two full footings. Washington had been asked to run for a 3rd term in 1796, but he made it rather clear that he had no purpose of making so ; that an orderly passage of power was needed to put the Constitution in rock. And so it was for about 150 old ages. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was foremost elected President in 1932, and re-elected in 1936. When it came clip for the Democrats to put up a campaigner for the Presidency in 1940, two things had happened. First, the Republicans had made great additions in Congress in the 1938 elections. And Hitler happened. Europe was in the throes of a great war, with T
rouble in the Pacific, excessively. A alteration off from Roosevelt, who had lead the state through the Great Depression, did non look wise. He was nominated for an unprecedented 3rd term, and won. It was non a landslide triumph, nevertheless, and it is problematic that FDR would hold had a 3rd term had it non been for the war. When 1944 rolled about, altering leaders in the center of World War II, which the United States was now to the full engaged in, besides seemed unwise, and FDR ran for and was elected to, a 4th term. His life was about over, nevertheless, and his Vice President, Harry Truman, became President upon FDR’s decease less than 100 yearss after his startup ( besides portion of the Constitution, seen in Amendment 25 ) . Though FDR’s leading was seen by many as a cardinal ground that the U.S. came out of WWII winning, the Congress was determined, one time the war ended, to guarantee that Washington’s self-imposed two-term bound go the jurisprudence of the land. Specifically demuring Truman from its commissariats, the 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947. After Truman won a 2nd term in 1948, it was ratified on February 27, 1951. Truman could hold run for a 3rd term, but bowed out early before runing began. This Amendment was written fundamentally so that Washington’s tradition was carried on. But if a President is making a good occupation at running the President, why elect person new and inexperienced?
In August of 1997, the universe was shocked with the intelligence that the Princess of Wales was killed in a violent auto wreck. Many confederacies were fabricated about the cause of her accident. However, the 1 that makes the most sense to the populace and to the constabulary was that Diana was seeking to get away the many cameras of the paparazzi. The lensmans were held with the belief that they caused the accident while taking images and so failed to help the victims after the clang. For old ages, the paparazzi have exploited and invaded people & # 8217 ; s privateness. They take advantage of the first amendment. In my sentiment, I think that the rights of the imperativeness should be limited. Pictures should merely be taken with the individual & # 8217 ; s consent. Any newsman that violates this should be fined or even jailed, depending on the state of affairs. The chief point here is that although the imperativeness is allowed some rights, the people are allowed more, and they have to compensate to their privateness.
The President is one of the most of import and influential individual of our state. If he is making a good occupation at running the state, why should person new be elected to his place? Back in 1787, when the Constitution was created, the people were fearful of America going a monarchy. Well, even if there is a leader for a long clip, the remainder of the authorities is elected by the people, which is non a feature of a monarchy. During the clip of FDR, many Americans feared that he would go a oppressive leader, like Hitler, and that was why the Amendment was passed after he died. Although the President appears to run the state, he is simply merely a interpreter for many people. A tyrant won & # 8217 ; t allow anyone else talk their head and is non concerned for the citizens. Well if a President is making a good occupation, and the people agree with this by demoing their support and electing him to stand for America, so why should he be prevented from making this? I think that a President & # 8217 ; s term should non be limited. The voice of the people will state if he is suited for the place or non. The Amendment decides it for them.
In the United States of America, each twelvemonth more than 30,000 deceases are the consequence of gun force. Of this figure, 23,000 of these deceases occurred from pistol. The assorted readings of this Amendment tend to tilt in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to guarantee that persons have the absolute right to have pieces ; the second is that the amendment was meant to guarantee that States could organize, arm, and keep their ain reserves. Either manner, it is a saloon to federal action merely, intending that a State may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the ordinance of pieces ; similarly, private regulations and ordinances may forbid or promote pieces. For illustration, & # 8220 ; if a lodging association wants to exclude any piece from being held within its boundary lines, it is free to make so. & # 8221 ; ( CQ & # 8217 ; 91 ) . The Court, in allowing the United States to do pint-size scatterguns illegal, basically said that such arms do non lend to the care of a reserves, and have no usage in guaranting the common defence ( United States v. Miller, 1939 ) . The principle used in Miller has been the footing for all gun control Torahs since 1939. As the GPO notes, & # 8220 ; At what point ordinance or prohibition of what categories of pieces would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller instance does little more than project a swoon grade of light toward an answer. & # 8221 ; ( CQ & # 8217 ; 91 ) . I feel that if so many deceases are a consequence of pistols, so this amendment should be repealed. As for the quotation mark I restated earlier, the thought of this is about absurd. Can you conceive of what our state would be like cognizing that every individual is transporting a gun? The figure or inadvertent deceases or hurts from a pistol is scaring. You would hold self protection, yes, but you fundamentally wouldn & # 8217 ; t be safe anyplace you went. I think that the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten, and that it is illegal to have or transport any type of gun. Some might travel every bit far as stating that police officers shouldn & # 8217 ; t be allowed to bear a piece either, stating that there are excessively many inadvertent deceases affecting their arms. However, the 2nd Amendment was created so that the ground forces and the authorities could protect the citizens. Without a arm, the police officers would be merely like everyone else.
In the hereafter, any of these proposed alterations are possible. Many people are concerned about gun control and are contending to set more limitations on the Amendment. However, I don & # 8217 ; t think that this amendment will be changed wholly or repealed from the Constitution. The United States is excessively split on the issue that they will ne’er hold to revoke. I do believe that in the hereafter the imperativeness will hold limited rights. Privacy is a really of import facet of life, and the imperativeness sometimes goes to far for a image or a narrative. I decidedly think that this Amendment will be altered to fulfill American citizens instead than the imperativeness. I besides think that the term of the President will non be changed. Unfortunately, political relations today is cutthroat, and everyone wants a opportunity to be on top. If one individual ruled for 50 old ages at a clip, no 1 else would acquire a opportunity to turn out they can be merely every bit good. Besides, altering this Amendment would be traveling against Washington & # 8217 ; s bequest.
1. Bonnicksen, Andrea L. Civil Rights and Liberties. California: Mayfield Publishing Co,
2. Cooper, Mary H. & # 8220 ; Reassessing the Nation & # 8217 ; s Gun Laws. & # 8221 ; CQ Researcher. Washington
District of columbia: CQ Inc, 1991.
3. Jost, Kenneth. & # 8220 ; Presidential Terms. & # 8221 ; CQ Researcher. Washington DC: CQ Inc, 1992.
4. Sundquist, James L. Constitutional Reform and Effective Government. Washington
District of columbia: The Brookings Institution, 1986.