Can a Piece of Hemp Paper with Ink last 228 Years?

The United States form democracy originates from the first time the Articles of Confederation was drafted on July twelfth 1776. The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until all states approved this document which finally happened almost five years later on March first 1781. Although our government is structured with the Constitution as a base, the Constitution was derived from the Articles of Confederation. Thanks Shay’s Rebellion, the weakness in the government became more prominent to the common people when the courts were unable to operate due to landowners wielding muskets promptly waiting for the judges to arrive at the courthouses. The Constitutional Convention was assembled to create a more powerful central power to our government at the time.

During this Constitutional Convention we see the strict versus loose constructionism. The strict Constructionists like Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic wanted the Constitution to be interpreted and enforced through a textual sense and strictly to the wording on the document. Meanwhile the loose constructionists like Hamilton and the other Federalists thought the Constitution should be loosely interpreted. Viewing it in a loose sense would mean the government would abide by the powers given on the document but also had reserved powers not mentioned. Hamilton thought loose constructionism would help in aid the adaptation of the nation while it progressed in the future. He though that if it were to be strictly read then it would place a limit on the central government’s power. This is where the idea of the amendments came into the spectrum. It only took from about three years from the date the Constitution was ratified (March 4th, 1789) to have the first ten amendments drafted by James Madison ratified by all states. The ratification completed on December fifteenth 1791. This ensure that the common people would be specifically protected and have their basic rights in place, which many people felt they did not have with the original Constitution.

I think that the government has a excellent balance between a loose and strict interpretation. In certain areas, some citizens would like a more strict insight rather than a loose one. For example many republicans and some democrats would rather a strict representation of the right to bear arms. I think our government does a good job of maintaining the original ideas of democracy and freedom but should have a system of updating it. Many of our amendments have been put in place with a social outlook rather than updating the functionality and portions of the structure. In my opinion an example of a pointless piece of our government would be filibustering. This is when a representative speaking inside the Senate continues for extreme amounts of time in order to tire out objectors to their desire cause. Some records for filibustering continue for over 24 hours speaking. In a place of Democracy where representatives vote in place of the common people it seems ridiculous to speak for those lengths of time just to make others leave. I do not think a reproduction of our government with regard to today’s society would have much affect since Americans, for the most part, pride themselves on the ideas of their founding fathers. Instead, the US should maybe stop targeting third world economic points of oil and focus on the people and the structure of itself.

10 Responses to "Can a Piece of Hemp Paper with Ink last 228 Years?"

Lotte Elfering says:

September 15, 2017 at 6:15 pm

Interesting article about the interpretation of the constitution. However, I will have to disagree with you about what you call the “pointless piece of our government”, filibustering. In my opinion, filibustering is a useful tool for the minority in government to be able to express their ideas and sometimes, when the Senate, the House, and the Presidency are all controlled by the same party (as is currently the case), it is the only way for the minority party to oppose legislation that goes against their fundamental principles.

I can understand the argument that the people elect those that represent their views, and that thus the majority should be able to make the laws the majority of the people want, however these laws sometimes infringe on the rights of the minorities. It is vital to the preservation of the state to allow the minority to intervene if they fundamentally believe something will harm them.

It should be remembered that choosing to filibuster a law is a demanding option that is only employed in the rarest of circumstances. As you were saying, some filibusters have continued for more than 24 hours, an incredible task both physically and mentally. This indicates that the people filibustering the bill have very good reasons not to want this, if they are willing to go to such lengths to filibuster it.
Jackson Krase says:

September 17, 2017 at 12:11 pm

After reading your blog post, I agree with your statement that the government needs to develop a system in which some aspects of our Constitution become updated to better reflect the times we live in today. Furthermore, I find it very interesting that you brought in the filibuster debate and the notion of obstructionism. Despite me concurring with your view that filibustering is hurting our government, I disagree with your statement that it is ‘pointless’.

When our founding fathers drafted the Constitution they believed that by making it difficult to pass legislation, then the fundamental freedoms of American citizens would be better protected. Thus, filibustering is intended to protect the rights of the minority against the desires of the majority as well as promote further debate on the given subject. By making the Senate step back and reevaluate the legislation being filibustered, it encourages new perspectives and compromises to be considered.

Despite its benefits, I ultimately hold the opinion that filibustering is detrimental to our democratic republic and needs to be revised; but not abolished altogether. As Sanjay Sanghoee wrote in his Huffington Post Article, filibustering “prevents a vote on a measure, which is essentially the same as a trial attorney refusing to let a jury deliver a verdict through a never-ending closing argument. If that sounds ridiculous, it is.” The process of filibustering also has been abused in response to Obamacare and other controversial democratic lead initiatives. The large majority of filibustering, unfortunately, leads to inaction, either as a scare tactic or to by in large stop legislation.

As I mentioned earlier, I advance that filibustering needs to be reformed. One such step towards the right direction would be to implement a process of fast-track options for legislation that is supported by upwards of 80 percent of Senators and resisted by a select few. Also, I think by forcing filibusters to speak continuously on the Senate floor, the personal costs would greatly increase and thus create a different pathway for further negotiation.
Helen Spiller says:

September 17, 2017 at 2:20 pm

This is a very interesting blog post! I really like the debate between loose and strict constructionism of the constitution and I agree it is very important to look at today. However, I disagree that the government has a good balance. I actually believe that we should have a more loose construction regarding our constitution. While I do believe that our constitution has laid out a very strong base to guide a country, I think it does need to be slightly adapted through time. The world is an extremely different place now compared to 1787.
For example, the second amendment of our constitution is the right to bear arms, which was created for the purpose of creating a local militia to protect your state. The right to bear arms was not created with the intention of average citizens having the right to carry assault rifles around and, perhaps, use them for reasons more than just protection so perhaps this amendment should be looked at in a different light. A second example of why I believe more strongly in loose constructionism is the necessary and proper clause which I think is an important clause in our constitution. This clause allows for our government to enact laws and procedures that what our government believes is best for the country, without having to go through long processes of law making and altering. All in all, I agree with your argument that the constitution is important in both a strict and loose sense; however, I would argue we should have more of a loose construction rather than strict.
Bradley Schuermann says:

September 17, 2017 at 6:30 pm

I would agree that our constitution allows for both strict and loose interpretation. The phrasing is often ambiguous and the age of such language certainly doesn’t help attribute meaning to it in a contemporary sense. However I would say the interpretation of the constitution is exactly that, an interpretation. However strict or loose an interpretation is is created from the interpreter. In today’s society, I believe the way we, and many of our lawmakers, interpret this document is to benefit our own wants and needs. This ambiguity suggests that our laws too are as equally conditional. In the end, I agree, perhaps its time to ‘modernize’ our laws and constitutions, but the conditionality with which the original constitution was written must remain.
Jackson Puckey says:

September 17, 2017 at 7:03 pm

The point you made on the balance between strict constructionism and loose constructionism was quite accurate! While both parties claim to be the party of the constitution, this means different things depending on which organization you belong to. You made the point about the second amendment, where conservatives tend to be more strictly constructionist and liberals tend to feel that the document must evolve with given contemporary circumstances. While this is a clear way of illustrating the issue, it is also relevant to point out that many liberals view the phrasing of “A well regulated Militia” to mean that this is only relevant for militias and the army, rather than personal use. In this way, both parties are able to paint themselves as the strict constructionists on this and many other issues.
The simple existence of amendments shows that absolute strict constructionism (sometimes referred to as the “original intent” of the founders) is itself somewhat of a contradiction. Loose constructionism and the ability to adapt the Constitution is what has kept it alive for so long compared to other nations (France isn’t called the “Fifth French Republic” for nothing). While it is important to keep the ideals and intentions of the Founders in the minds of our democratic leaders, it is also important that the Constitution adapt to our changing world.
One way in which governance has adapted due to loose constructionism is the idea of war. At the end of your post, you mention the US going to war in Middle Eastern nations. As many students probably know, the US has not “officially” been to war since 1945, yet we have been in many international conflicts. This distinction has become significantly less clear since the end of World War 2, after which the President took significantly more power in terms of international conflict. While there has been no amendment to the Constitution, the document has been interpreted significantly differently in the past half-century when it comes to war powers and how they must be exercised.
Stephanie Hughes says:

September 17, 2017 at 9:36 pm

The supposed benefits of a loose interpretation to the constitution are idealist in nature. In a perfect world, a loose interpretation would allow for modernization and reimagining of laws over time. However, my belief ultimately lies more with the strict constructivists – I fear that a large government would gain too much power over the states’ rights. It is crucial to have laws and rights be explicitly outlined for the citizens who are to live under them. Otherwise, rights may be taken advantage of and democracy may lose some of its meaning.

Other commenters have already made clear their opinions on the filibuster, but I wanted to express my agreement with you. I understand the strength of the filibuster and commend those who feel strongly enough about a topic to enact one, but I ultimately feel it is unjust to impose the will of a minority opinion (which it must be in order for a filibuster to be justified) upon the broader majority. I recall learning in a high school government course that a congressman read bedtime stories during his filibuster – this seems like a petty waste of time. I don’t discredit people for taking advantage of the filibuster – it is a legal, though quirky, aspect of US law – I just think it should be re-evaluated as a part of our nation’s legislative branch.
Reid Chenault says:

September 17, 2017 at 9:57 pm

This post argues a great piece of American government in the ideas of strict and loose interpretations of the Constitution. This argument could truly go either way depending on personal beliefs, as it did between many of the founding fathers. I believe that the way the government has handled this idea has been very productive in the fact that our country seems to have one of the strongest democracies in the world.

I think that the idea of strict vs. loose interpretation has led to many of the great qualities of American democracy such as limited government, separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, and popular sovereignty. The framers all had different views on these ideas that eventually led to the creation of the Constitution. Centuries later, and the Constitution still is one of the most power pieces of legislation in the country, and in my perspective it is because of the strict and loose interpretations by the framers.

I think one big factor that has allowed the Constitution to be interpreted loosely is the Elastic Clause in Article 1 Section 8, which basically states that the laws shall be whatever is “necessary and proper” to control the people, etc. This clause has created a way for the Constitution to deal with the ever changing society in America. Without this, and many other clauses like it, I believe the Constitution would not be as effective as it is today.
Allison McLaughlin says:

September 17, 2017 at 11:02 pm

I really appreciate your positive discussion of the Constitution. The fact that it was ratified in 1791 and is still applicable and sensible today, without too many changes, is truly remarkable. I think that it is especially commendable considering the United States was the first real source of democracy in the world and was taking a huge risk in trying out something so opposite from the norm. Further, many people believe that the framers of the Constitution were purely self interested and only worried about making more money and getting more benefits for themselves. I think that if this sentiment was true, then the form of government that the Constitution shapes would not still be in use and thriving today.

I also thing your discussion of a loose vs. strict interpretation of the Constitution is very necessary for Americans to think about, as it dictates many policies within our nation. I personally believe that the Constitution is a living document that has to be interpreted loosely in accordance with the condition of society. For example, the 2nd Amendment states that citizens have a right to bear arms, yet does not give details about the circumstances or procedures that go along with it. Because of the lack of details, I think it is the perfect example of the fact that we must practically interpret the Amendment in terms of society’s condition and needs, instead of just taking each Amendment word for word.
Declan Horrigan says:

September 17, 2017 at 11:40 pm

I think your ideas and questions posed are some of the most important topics surrounding the Constitution and have been heavily debated since the ratification of the Constitution and they are still certainly being discussed today. The understanding, interpretation, and implementation of the U.S. Constitution is the entire basis of our government and affect how every single person in the United States lives their lives on a daily basis. Therefore, we need to get it right, or as close to right as possible. I think you make many good points about this, specifically how we do have a balance of loosely interpreting the words of the document as well as interpreting it strictly as it was written on at other times. I believe that the only way to understand, interpret, and implement the Constitution is on a case-by-case basis because every scenario is different, especially because we are always developing and changing as a nation. We must use the basic principles of the Constitution and the ideas that the Framer’s transcribed for us to follow but we also need to understand that principles that they described might not be exactly correct anymore because how much our country has changed. By no means am I saying that we should ignore the Constitution, throw it out the window and just go with the flow, however, it is important that we critique its origins and use it as an overarching document that we base our decisions on, but that it can be changed because it is a living document. That is why I think your question that is the title of your post “Can a Piece of Hemp Paper with Ink last 228 Years?” is very important, and the answer is both yes and no. It has lasted this long and will continue to last, but that is only because we add amendments and understand that the principles are not set in stone, but can be developed as necessary.
Camryn Travis says:

September 17, 2017 at 11:59 pm

I think that all Framers were strict constructionists when the U.S. Constitution was originally ratified. They had to be in order to successfully pass the document amongst their own communities. I personally do not think the addition of a “necessary and Proper clause” meant the framers were loose constructionists, but were instead well aware that they would not be able to fully incorporate every law of the land. To me a loose constructionist is someone that believes the Constitution should be the skeleton of American law. A strict constructionist believes the Constitution is the law of the land and should be followed verbatim. Had the Framers not been strict constructionists they would not have worked as hard as they did to create an all encompassing and thorough Constitution. The pure nature of a strict and loose constructionist prevents from one being the other. I think that if someone finds a ‘grey area’ within a part of the Constitution, no matter how small, they are by default a loose constructionist.

Comments are closed.