Constitutional Amendment and Review

For all the perceived flaws regarding the U.S. Constitution, history has proven that the alternatives are far worse. The Articles of Confederation gave far too little power to a central power, whereas a monarchy gave an undesired absolute power to whomever was born into it, devoid of consent from the people. In writing the Constitution, the Framers sought to strike a sturdy middle ground where the people would have an important voice in the operations of centralized government, but with checks on the power of the majority to ensure that all voices were heard. However, in order to truly give power to the masses, the Constitution could not be set in stone.

When the original Framers of the Constitution set out to improve upon the newly failed Articles of Confederation, they knew that not everything could be explained within the confines of their own thinking. Situations would arise at some point in time that would have no precedent with which to judge. In these situations, the Framers understood that the Constitution would be completely useless if the words on the page were stringent. Thus, the Framers believed that the Constitution was subject to interpretation if the circumstances surrounding a situation did not fit the letter of what was written on the page.

As such the most important aspect of the Constitution lies Article Five: the power to amend and interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times. With such an Article in the framework, the Constitution is often described as a “living” document, more of a guideline or foundation for law than explicit definition. If we as the American people were to strictly adhere to only what the Constitution explicitly states, the history of the United States may have been very different from the outset. Most notably, Article Five closes by stating that certain clauses, such as protection of the importation of slaves, could not be amended. Despite such a statement, this clause was in fact amended in 1808 so that the importation of slaves was actually prohibited thenceforth. If Article Five had been followed to the word, it is possible that the importation of slaves could have continued all the way to the Civil War, or possibly even past it. Thus, the Constitution cannot be seen as an overriding law that supersedes rational thought or changing times. Instead I believe that the only way to properly interpret the Constitution is that the men writing it set up a framework that would be left to their successors to revise should the need arise.

Despite my own interpretations of the Constitution however, many believe that the Constitution’s word is ironclad and immutable. Most notably today, many defenders of the Second Amendment believe that it would be unconstitutional to amend or even revise such a contentious amendment. As impartially as I can be, I believe that the fact that many supporters of the Second Amendment are unwilling to even discuss the archaic nature of the amendment is unconstitutional. As I stated above, Article Five allows for discussion over the possibility to amend the Constitution if it no longer best serves the interests of the people. Such a thing is not even without precedent either. After 13 years the 18^th Amendment, seen as a disaster by many, was repealed by another constitutional amendment, the 21^st. This was not done by some greater agenda but was instead looked into and ultimately ratified as the 18^th Amendment was not in the best interests of the people. With the beginnings of organized crime as we know it directly linked to the Prohibition and extreme unpopularity with about half of the voting population (sound familiar?), Congress ultimately decided that the 18^th Amendment was out of touch and needed to be changed. I believe that a similar situation must take place with the Second Amendment. While I believe that the United States no longer has a need for such an amendment, specifically in regard to the idea that we still need a citizen’s militia (considering our defense budget numbers in the hundreds of billions), I am not so blind as to say that we need to completely do away with the Amendment. Doing so would only fracture the population and would spit on the millions of ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, our fellow citizens. I simply ask that we subject the Second Amendment to judgment and review as dictated in the Constitution.

7 Responses to "Constitutional Amendment and Review"

Klein Evans says:

January 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm

Brett,

This post does a great job in giving the audience a very clear illustration of what the Constitution is made up of. A couple of times when you mention specific amendment you begin to hint at providing evidence from historical events. This is the only thing that I think your post needs to really come together and be strong.

You provide the statement concerning the second amendment and how its supporters react when the legitimacy of the amendment is questioned. This is a great direction to go but then the idea is abandoned and another amendment is mentioned. There are plenty of past events that could strengthen the fact that these supporters of the second amendment may be at fault. From the Texas church shooting to the recent Las Vegas shooting, both of these incidents can be used to argue that maybe the second amendment should be adjusted.

This was a great informational post, I just believe more of an argument and evidence from historical events would make it just a little better!
Akshit Sharma says:

January 31, 2018 at 9:52 pm

Brett, I agree with you that the constitution should not be “ironclad and immutable.” Instead, just as the textbook mentions, it should be used as a guiding document instead of a rule book. I currently see it being used as the latter, but hope that people come to terms with the fact that a document that is over 200 years old needs to updated so that it reflects the ideas of the times that it is being referred to in. A guiding light will not mark the path for us but it will sure help us get there.
Akshit Sharma says:

January 31, 2018 at 9:52 pm

Brett, I agree with you that the constitution should not be “ironclad and immutable.” Instead, just as the textbook mentions, it should be used as a guiding document instead of a rule book. I currently see it being used as the latter, but hope that people come to terms with the fact that a document that is over 200 years old needs to updated so that it reflects the ideas of the times that it is being referred to in. A guiding light will not mark the path for us but it will sure help us get there.
Samuel Lambeth says:

January 31, 2018 at 10:05 pm

Brett,

Your post outlined some interesting topics, such as the importance of the 5th Amendment and also the need to review the 2nd Amendment. However, I’m not sure which of these two points you are trying to make the main theme of your post, but I do understand the connection between the two. To extend the conversation forward, I would like to mention the importance of our democratic majority system. For example, the 18th Amendment was replaced by the 21st Amendment only because the majority ruled so. In order to amend or even consider to review the 2nd Amendment, I strongly believe the United States would have to come closer to more of a consensus on this topic. This Amendment is a controversial topic and it honestly divides our country ideologically. The link/picture attached below shows how divided we are as a nation on this American right. Great job on your post!

https://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006199
Everett Harper says:

January 31, 2018 at 11:00 pm

Brett,

I believe that your blog outlines many good points I just found it a little hard to follow. What I drew from your post was the need to reevaluate the 2nd Amendment, and that something needs to be done with it like Amendments in the past. Although I agree that the 2nd Amendment needs to be reviewed a bit. As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I am not blind to the fact that America has way too many mass shootings, and I agree that something should be done about it. I believe that changing the 2nd amendment would prove to be much more difficult than people would anticipate. I believe that it would be difficult for many reasons. The first being the problem of where to draw the line on what kind of illness permits a person to buy a firearm. Second, there is a line to be drawn on which kind of firearms/attachments citizens would be able to legally buy. What many people do not know is that there is strict regulation on automatic firearms and attachments such as silencers. The problem with this is that it becomes easier and much cheaper to acquire one of these illegally. Come full circle, if we were to reevaluate the 2nd amendment it would pose a problem because there are already so many weapons in circulation today. I don’t disagree that something should be done with the 2nd amendment, but I believe as a country that we are sadly too late to take large steps on this issue given that majority of citizens vote to make changes to the 2nd amendment.

Good take on the issue and well written
Stephanie Ellicott says:

January 31, 2018 at 11:03 pm

Brett,

I thought your post was very informative and interesting to read. Although I wish you had included more of your own opinions and arguments, I overall enjoyed reading what you had to say.

I think you made a very interesting point when you wrote about Article 5 of the Constitution: the power to amend and interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times. When I read this it automatically made me think of how some religious people treat The Bible. Throughout history people have made decisions that negatively affect others with their reasoning being “that is what The Bible says” or told them to do. In my opinion, scripture is meant to be interpreted, not followed as true and literal in its words. However, the difference between The Bible and the Constitution is that what is written in the Constitution can be amended.

We the people have the ability to alter the laws that we are ruled by, but also have a duty to listen to those who do not agree with us. I have a very hard time understanding those who feel the need to bear arms in a safe suburban community with children under their roof. But it is important to hear them out.

However, it is also very important to make a stand for what we feel should be changed if that change would be beneficial for the greater good. The Constitution was created by brilliant intellectuals who knew that times would change and certain amendments would no longer be relevant or necessary. Therefore, we should honor that decision and make changes when changes need to be made.

Thank you again for your post.

-Stephanie
Michael De La Cruz says:

February 3, 2018 at 6:59 pm

The Constitution is a brilliant guideline to how our government should be run. Incorporating the radical ideals of liberty and equality of the time, the United States Constitution is a well-thought-out document that has withstood the test of time. The men who wrote it were geniuses and they ensured that a tyrant would never reign over America again. However, being a minority in the United States of America, I think it is imperative that the constitution not be interpreted strictly.
First, the original Constitution was not meant to include women, slaves, Native Americans, or any other minorities. How am I supposed to support an interpretation that excludes me from some basic human rights? The founders of this country would have not wanted me to attend school, vote, hold office, etc. It is hard for me to favor a strict interpretation when I know that a strict interpretation would strip me of my worth.
Second, debates and deliberation would be pointless under a strict interpretation. How would we achieve any level of accommodation or variation as our society evolves in a way that overlooks times of the past? Through a strict interpretation, we would be promoting a governing body that would fail to progress and remain stagnant. This stagnation would have devastating consequences, as we would fail to adapt to the changing states of other nations.

Comments are closed.