Would you change anything?

America’s first constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation, was agreed by Congress in 1777 and ratified and in force by 1781. At the time, there was no president and had been run by one legislature. The constitution was very weak because each state acted as its own country. After America won The Revolutionary War and gained its freedom from Great Britain it was clear that in order to remain stable they would need a strong government to protect themselves from France and Spain in the south of overthrowing them. During the war, each state was responsible of funding the militia. In Massachusetts, the wealthier people agreed to give up their money as long as they would eventually be repaid. After the war when they were not receiving their money they became mad and took people to debtor’s courts. Since the poor barely had any money to give up during the war, they definitely had no money to repay after it so the rich decided they would take their land and property and anything else valuable to them as payments and then rent it to those original owners. This led to Shays Rebellion where Daniel Shays gathered a bunch of citizens with weapons and went to each court house not letting any of the judges in and therefore no debtor court could take place. Since majority of the people were rebelling and against the laws that were placed the framers realized they needed to change things because if majority of people disagree and do not follow the laws in place then the government essentially would not work. The Constitutional Convention occurred in Philadelphia where 73 delegates of the states were supposed to go but only 55 showed because some of them did not agree or want a central government. The framers created a republican government and included separation of powers with checks and balances, a representative election, and federalism. Large and small states were given equal representation in the Senate and representation based on the population in the House of Representatives. It was a stressful process to ratify the Constitution because of the disagreements between federalists and anti-federalists. The Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to the Constitution that granted basic rights to citizens.

A couple of amendments that have been getting twisted recently has been the 1^st Amendment of freedom of speech, press, and religion and 4^th Amendment of search and seizure. The 4^th amendment protects any unlawful or unreasoning searches from police or other authorities without warrants or probable cause. The first amendment allows citizens to act freely. The nation has been in an uproar recently because of the police brutality that has never ended. People are getting assaulted, arrested, and harassed by authorities simply because of their skin. These occurrences affect all people despite skin color, religion, or economic class. As a child, everyone is taught to respect others how they want to be treated, so why do these problems occur? Everything seems to always revert to who represents our country and what they are (or aren’t) doing in terms of fixing problems like these.

If I could make a change to the Constitution I think I would modify the 22^nd Amendment of the two-term limit of a president. I know Franklin Roosevelt had this luxury as he was elected four times before the amendment was put in effect. I think that some presidents (like Barack Obama) should be able stay in office to prevent an issue that we have today with Trump as president. The nation’s problems need to be carefully dealt with in a reasonable way. It could be effective if there was an election like we have today between people running for president and then whoever wins that would go against the person who has been in office for the past four years. This could potentially keep narcissistic and politically unqualified people out of the white house and could bring in those who will be part of this country’s solution to political, societal, and economic issues. I think since representatives can be continuously re-elected, presidents should have that ability too. Let me know what you would change of the Constitution or if you wouldn’t change anything at all.

12 Responses to "Would you change anything?"

Kendall Crispin says:

September 14, 2017 at 12:29 pm

Do you think that the anti-federalists and the federalists were the first true two parties in our nation? It’s crazy to think that there are people who wouldn’t want our government under 1 federal rule, but I guess that is still true today. There are obviously people who still believe that the federal government shouldn’t have as much power. For example, according to US News (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/08/25/poll-most-americans-think-the-federal-government-has-too-much-power) 75% of republicans think the federal government has too much power to this day. The sentiments that started so many years ago hold true in many aspects of the constitution. After all, it is the basis for our government and the supreme law of the land. But then again, much has changed too. For an infinite amount of reasons we don’t have the 3/5 compromise, compromise of 1808, and the fugitive slave law anymore, and of course, we have the addition of the Bill of Rights.
The amendment from the Bill of Rights that you brought up is very important. Truthfully, I don’t know if democracy would be able to exist without freedom of speech. We would be influenced to vote in ways we didn’t believe if we weren’t able to speak our minds. We have been debating whether or not America should bring democracy to other countries, and this is a freedom that I believe we should provide. We all deserve to feel safe and speak our opinion without getting oppressed. There are many countries such as North Korea, Libya, and Uzbekistan where that is
The process of amending the constitution was made difficult for a reason. With the 2/3 of both houses being required to make a change, it definitely was put in place to keep our constitution as set in stone as possible. That is just another example of the checks and balance system that this country has put in place awhile ago. The limits of terms for the President, House, and Senate is another way we regulate democracy. We don’t know how the election would have turned out if Obama were to run again. The limits are set in order to protect everyone’s interests, so everyone’s ideal policies have the chance of getting met every 4 or 8 years. The President’s guidelines shouldn’t mirror what you said about the House, because the President has much more power. With executive orders, he has the possibility of changing a lot more than the House does, therefore should have a limit on how long he serves.
Katherine Fell says:

September 15, 2017 at 3:12 pm

While you make interesting points about presidential term limits within our Constitution, I disagree with the idea that presidents should be exempt of having a term limit. In fact, I believe that term limits should also be imposed in Congress as well. While having experienced representatives and senators on Capital Hill is beneficial in our government, it can also lead to having many career politicians, and there is very little opportunity for new faces to come into government with their ideas for America. I therefore propose for representatives to be able to serve for five terms, and senators should be able to serve for three terms. This way, we still are able to have experienced politicians in our government, while still making room for new people to represent their constituencies.
In regards to the example that you brought up in your original post, I’m not sure how different the most recent election would have been if Obama were to run for his third term. Even though Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won the electoral college, and won almost all of the “flyover states” in the midwest, securing himself the presidency in the process. In his campaign, Trump was able to connect with this group of working Americans who felt as though they were being overlooked and ignored by the establishment that both Clinton and Obama have come to represent in today’s government. Trump was able to unite this group together to keep Clinton out of office. Many of her policies are similar to Obama’s and many people voted against her because they felt as though her presidency would essentially be another four years of Obama’s policies, which is why I don’t think that even Obama would be able to beat Trump if there were no term limits and he were running again.
While it is easy to idealize having a popular president like Obama stay in office indefinitely, term limits are essential in order for our American democracy to function. They ensure that there is a turnover of power and new policy ideas are being brought to the executive branch. Term limits are what will ensure that Donald Trump will have a maximum of eight years in office, and another president will come to take his place.
Lotte Elfering says:

September 15, 2017 at 9:03 pm

Thinking about what we would change about the constitution is an interesting thought experiment, and I am sure everyone has something they would want to be added or removed from the constitution. It is an important topic to think about, because as society progresses and its ideals, values, and people change, the law that most fundamentally rules the country should change with it.

Many articles from the constitution are so integral to the design of the United States and to the essence of every democratic society that they could not be changed without harming society in a major way. However, I feel that the constitution is not perfect, and would benefit from the 1st Amendment to be amended.

I am not saying we need to get rid of free speech altogether – free speech is one of these essential values to democracy – but I believe it would be wise to add a ban on hate speech within the constitution. This ban would limit freedom of speech in a minor way, but it would protect those people in our society that are most vulnerable. If the United States adopts the concept of freedom of speech to the point where it does not harm other individuals or encourages people to speak hatefully about certain groups, it would be beneficial to all of society.

There are arguments to be offered against this, the main one being that it is very subjective about what speech actually harms others. However, I believe that there could be specific guidelines for this, and in order for speech to infringe on other people’s lives it needs to be damaging and serious. In short, it needs to create an unsafe environment for certain people to live in.
Jackson Krase says:

September 16, 2017 at 10:14 pm

With the rising vehemency of the United States’ current political climate, the question you posed regarding amending the constitution strikes at the very heart of our governmental structure. Even though I think you made some excellent points in your argument for amending the 22nd Amendment, I believe that this Amendment is vital to keeping in check the collusion between elected officials and special interests. Furthermore, term limits allow for elected officials to focus mainly principle and less on political deliberations or fallout. Sometimes politicians avoid making controversial decisions in order evade damaging their re-election hopes but as Albert Einstein famously said: “What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”

The presidential term limit debate is interesting and complex because even without term limits, there are still many fixed restrictions on who can legally hold elected office. For example, in order to be elected to the office of the presidency, one must have been a resident of the United States for a minimum of fourteen years and be 35 years of age. Opponents of the 22nd Amendment often argue that restricting a number of terms an elected official can hold office is in itself anti-democratic. However, with term limits as a foundation of our government, there are barriers preventing one party from gaining too much control for an unknown period of time.

Another important aspect of term limits was brought up in Katherine’s comment and that is the idea of setting term limits for Congress. The notion of limiting the tenure of service for elected officials in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate is steadily gaining traction within the public opinion as Congress’s dysfunction continues to grow, illustrated recently in its failure to pass healthcare legislation and approve the real budget. In a 2016 poll by Rasmussen Reports, 74 percent of likely voters surveyed are in favor of establishing term limits for members of Congress while only a small 13 percent being against such measures. It is from this that I believe that by putting term limits on congressional members, a more fervent form of citizen legislature will emerge as leadership will change in a more frequent fashion. As U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) advanced, “With term limits, we will have more frequent changes in leadership and within congressional committees, giving reformers a better chance at overcoming the Beltway inertia that resists attempts to reduce the power of Washington.” Thus, by enacting term limits the abuse of power that so often plays an integral role in our government will be suppressed and new fresh ideas will be introduced to Congress.
Helen Spiller says:

September 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

I really like how you laid out a basis of reaction in your blog post and allowed for us to think on our own. It is interesting how you showed the amendments that you think are getting twisted. I agree with you there and I haven’t really thought about them before now. However, the first thing I would change would be the second amendment. In my opinion, the second amendment is the most crucial element of the constitution that needs to be changed because it can alter whether american citizens live or die. If it isn’t clear, I am a very large supporter of anti-gun regulations and I think the second amendment was created behind the idea of protection upon attack or abuse, not to harm one another.
Every year, more than 100,000 people in the United States are killed by guns. There are mass shootings with assault rifles (created for our trained military) that take place far too often than Americans even would like to admit. The use of guns by average citizens is backed by our second amendment right to bear arms for a militia, not for everyday citizen usage. I agree with you that some amendments are twisted and misused; however, I think this one is the most dangerous of those misused.
Allison McLaughlin says:

September 17, 2017 at 4:08 pm

I think you provided lots of interesting points that people don’t tend to think about. It is so common for all of us to simply accept things the way that they are and think that the policies and procedures of our nation are suitable and the most beneficial because it is the way they have always been. Getting stuck in this way of thinking is very dangerous, however, because it is vitally important for all of us to constantly question the society around us and question if it is a fair and equal society for all; specifically, it is important for us to take critical looks at the Constitution and remember that since it was written in a completely different era, we should question how it rightfully applies to the modern world. In this way, I think you touched on a very necessary point.

I disagree, however, with your thoughts on the 22nd Amendment. It was very interesting to ponder, but I think sometimes we forget to look at political policies from all citizens’ points of view, which was the case here. You mention that the two-term limit to presidency should be lengthened on the basis that the two-term limit allows people like Donald Trump to be in office. While I am not a fan of the current president for a plethora of reasons, we must remember that he won the presidency fairly, meaning millions of Americans voted for him and chose for him to be in office. There are times that we will not be happy with who is in office and who is in control of the government, but it is the very nature of our government and our system of fair voting that the people get to choose.

If I could change anything in the Constitution, it would probably be to just make the 10th Amendment a little more clear. While I know this would be hard thing to do as the Constitution is a living document and going into specifics can cause problems, I think that there if often confusion as to who has the final say in issues that happen in individual states (taxes, immigration, same-sex marriage, etc.) and the Constitution should be more clear on which issues the federal government does not have jurisdiction over.
Alexandra Friedman says:

September 17, 2017 at 8:11 pm

I really liked this post because it allowed us to frame some current issues in the context of the constitution. In 1776, our founding fathers decided on various ideals that we still follow. While the majority of people accept this and agree they should be followed to some extent, it is becoming more and more of an issue to draw the line. Essentially, the constitution has framed our law. But, since the constitution is blurry at times, it has started to effect laws. Like you said, this has been reflected in the issues of our country right now. Personally, it makes me think about Charlottesville. Technically, the constitution allows for assembly of people for any cause. But is freedom more important than stopping hate? The founding fathers would most likely say yes, but in our society this question is becoming increasingly prevalent. Essentially, our constitution was drafted at a time where freedom was the priority. But, in my opinion, by allowing groups to do whatever they want, we are actually restricting other people. The constitution implies that freedom is more important than protecting our fellow Americans.

Further, in regard to your point about the 22nd amendment, I have to disagree. Even though it may be hard for some people to fathom how Donald Trump was ever elected, others may have the same feelings about Barack Obama. Trump won (mostly) fairly, and we must respect that even if we disagree. In addition, the way the government is set up there are rightfully checks and balances on the presidency. Part of the reason that there is a term limit is that a new president brings new ideas with him or her, and this changeover is extremely important. It requires the president to make the most of their time in office. Without a term limit, there could easily be a repetition of ideas. America needs change to keep evolving for the better. We are able to learn from all presidents: good and bad.
Lilly Alemayehu says:

September 17, 2017 at 9:56 pm

I liked your synthesis of the constitution in the context of our modern society but I don’t agree with some of the points you made. I think the problems in our political system have less to do with who is representing the people, and more to do with the foundations on which this country was built. Although police brutality has been tolerated through modern law, the reason why racial profiling in law enforcement occurs is because of the toleration and perpetuation of inequality that has been reinforced by our Constitution. Systematically, people of color have been much more likely to be imprisoned or to be stopped for petty violations. This has been an issue since way before Donald Trump so despite who is representing the people, this issue has been affecting our country systematically since the foundation of our government. The civil rights movement changed the manifestations of racism but not the racially biased social structure, allowing the persistence of institutionalized inequality.

That being said, I think that in order to fix our country’s social problems, we would have to go back and rewrite the Constitution and also forget the past few centuries, which is frankly impossible. Although certain parts of the Constitution do play a larger role in affecting the implementation of inequality into our social structure, I don’t think that getting rid of the 22nd amendment would be helpful in ridding the country of its issues. Although I would much rather have Obama back in office, I don’t see that being the best path for our country because of the corruption and collusion that could occur if presidents were allowed unlimited time in office. I think term limits are there to protect our country from drifting into a realm of dictatorship and autonomous rule. The electoral college is already set up to inadequately represent certain groups of people and if the corruption found in gerrymandering is allowed to exist, I definitely believe that removing the restrictions of term limits would give too much power to the elite groups that are behind drawing district lines. They would have the power to skew elections and keep certain people in power indefinitely and that seems like very dangerous territory for our country to be in.
Declan Horrigan says:

September 17, 2017 at 11:08 pm

I think it is a very interesting and intriguing claim to modify the 22nd amendment and you make many make many strong points in your argument that provide good reasons why that might be a good idea. I agree that there is a possibility that it could keep very unqualified individuals out of office. This could also provide the re-elected individual more valuable time in office, especially because if someone were to be reelected after two terms it would demonstrate that they did a good job during their first two terms and that the American people as a whole (or at least as a majority) support the person firmly. One person in office repeatedly, like you mentioned the example of that person being Obama, could do really good work and initiate solutions to many of the problems the country has because they have that extended period of time in office.
On the other hand, I think that this could pose many problems. To counter the argument that it would encourage someone who is politically qualified to be president for an extended period of time, if someone who is not politically qualified got elected, they could continue to get elected over and over again even though they may not be the best person for the job. This would be a huge problem if we had an unqualified president for multiple terms. Furthermore, a large argument and problem that the American people have with the current system of two terms, is that during the first term of a president, the person spends a very large portion of their time, especially during the second half of their four years, campaigning for reelection rather than being focused on doing their job as the current president. They are forced to be focused on the next four years rather than the current situation and current problems.
Finally, to answer your question about what I would change about the constitution, I don’t have a specific aspect or amendment that I would modify. However, I would like to change many people’s mindsets about the Constitution. Many people take the words of the Constitution completely literally and cannot interpret them in the way that the Framers actually intended the words to mean. Furthermore, people need to understand that the Constitution is a living document and just because an amendment or idea was correct at the time it was written, doesn’t mean that it is now. The world has changed drastically since then, and our ideas can and need to develop in similar ways. For example, the second amendment about the right to bear arms was established when the most technically advanced gun was a musket that could shoot one round every thirty seconds, while today we have guns that can fire thirty rounds in a single second. This is clearly a large change and the understanding of the amendment should also change in a similar way.
Montgomery Thornburn says:

September 17, 2017 at 11:53 pm

It is an interesting question to bring up “What would you change in the Constitution?”. I suppose anyone can think of certain laws to add or remove that would benefit them individually so looking back to the document from how we view it today, I would say that the best thing to do would be to clarify amendments so that they could be easily understood hundreds and perhaps even thousands of years after they were written. Some of the biggest debates we have in politics today are on how to interpret certain amendments that were written at our governments inception. More clarity would help guide this nation through those difficult discussions and hopefully break some of the gridlock we consistently face when confronting these topics.

My belief may be routed in my belief that we should strictly interpret the Constitution otherwise we risk tainting the document by constantly twisting its words and language. Very loose interpretations of the constitution allow politicians and legislators to push for laws that might impede on the rights that the Framers sought to protect. I understand that we have evolved as a Country and so a 200 year old document may not necessarily fit with the modern sentiment, but the core ideals that the framers wrote down have plenty of merit and we should always respect that. We should not allow ourselves to tarnish the words of our founders to fit our immediate needs. If we continue to find ways to circumvent the Constitution then soon there will be no point in having it and that is a tragedy.
Grace Miller says:

September 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm

While I do think it is crucial to question the motives of the founding fathers and framers of our Constitution, I do not believe any changes should be made. I do fully agree with the fact we do have a living, breathing document running our country, however, I believe the court systems in America have the duty of plotting the course of those changes of interpretations of our Constitution. For example, when we discuss the first amendment, it would be unwise to do so without mentioning cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. This SC case decided that students did have the right to certain expression of ideas in the school environment and in the specific case of the school suspending their students for protesting against the Vietnam War, the Court ruled the school system had gone too far on infringing upon its students’ rights.
That being said, in an ideal world I’d like to echo previous commenters when they said I’d like to re-write our second amendment to clarify what the right to bear arms truly means. I personally am not a supporter of unlimited gun rights, and would like to see extra provisions including in depth background checks and limits on assault rifles and military grade weapons for the average civilian.
Yanbin Zhang says:

September 20, 2017 at 7:58 pm

It’s really an interesting and new idea to think about which part of the constitution could be improved. It’s hard to point how to change the constitution. But to some parts of the constitution, it indeed left some problems to current political system. The executive order from the President is one of them.
Actually there is no any detailed description or illustration about President’s executive power and the legitimacy of executive orders. In Article II, Section I, it says that “ The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States” and Section III states that “ he shall take care that laws be faithfully executed”. As the only description about executive power of President in the constitution, neither of them clearly states the limit of such power. So there is no any framing documents which ever said what President could do and what couldn’t. This vague definition left a room for the extended use of the executive order.
Undoubtedly, the executive orders has been an important weapon of President in some crucial cases in the history. The Declaration of the Slave by Lincoln and the New Deal by Roosevelt were both executed as executive orders. In such emergent cases, the executive order is the most effective way for President to run the country because it doesn’t need the prolonged ratification by the congress to come into force. Obama has also used it in the issues like immigration policy, LGBT, and healthcare while he was under the pressure of both houses controlled by Republican Party.
But there is a critical issue about the executive orders that how to repeal the orders when they seem to be not beneficial to the nation. It would take a long time to get two-third majority in the Congress. As for the Judiciary, according to Dr. Howell in his book Power without Persuasion, from 1945 to 1988, the court was partial to the President in 83% of the cases. So the obscure definition and control of the executive order of President would somehow harm the well-designed democratic structure in the U.S and need to be changed.

Comments are closed.