The United States Constitution: Is It Still Working? (Your Name) Political Science 121 Professor Arns March, 12, 2013
The United States Constitution: Is It Still Working? When was the last time one examined the applicability of the United States Constitution to modern society? Is it still relevant to twenty-first century values? In the past, the United States Constitution has been considered the ideal for emerging democratic countries. Yet, history has evolved, resulting in numerous changes. These modern social changes, according to some, including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, may not coincide with some of the rules and policies written in the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution, considering how substantially this country has changed in terms of values, morals and culture since the Constitution was birthed, should be updated to reflect and accommodate this modern society. Other arguments exist as to the future of this contemporary society. The suggestion of trashing the Constitution altogether and either replacing it with a new document, or living entirely without it is a possibility. One professor by the name of Louis Michael Seidman (2013), who supports this idea of abandoning the Constitution, expresses that, I don t think people 200 years ago have a right to decide what country we live in..the solution is to operate like many other countries in the world do to function without a binding Constitution (last half of video). He appears to believe that the United States Constitution is not necessary and the United States could be sustainable without it. The issue here is coming up with an entirely new document. That process can be long and tedious with temperamental results; it may work and it may not. The other issue with scrapping the Constitution could be that the way this country has evolved has been through the interpretations of the Constitution. To dispose of it or simply live without it
would be to dispose of a large portion of this country s history and to turn our backs on the progress it has made. Also, having no Constitution could turn into chaos. On the other hand, writing a new document could bring this country up to speed and resolve many issues, such as women s rights or rights for the disabled, of the modern world. Living without the Constitution could bring more freedom for the people and allow less room for interpretation or confusion. There is all too much room for interpretation and debate in terms of the United States Constitution. Areas with extreme political controversy, such as the Second Amendment for example, should be clarified. According to Saul Cornell (2008), specializing in the American Revolution, the Early Republic, History and Public Policy, and legal/constitutional history, Scholarship on the Second Amendment is now deeply divided. Indeed, there is currently a broad spectrum of views on the meaning of the Second Amendment running from an expansive individual rights view to the traditional collective rights view, and a host of new positions somewhere in the middle (para. 9). The term militia needs to be defined appropriately. The other problematic amendment is the fourteen Amendment. Part of it was applied inappropriately in Roe versus Wade as. In the first article of the fourteenth amendment, it states (U.S. Const, amendment 14, article 1): All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This case dealt with abortion and the life of an unborn person. It states that nor shall any state deprive any person of life (U.S. Const, amendment 14, article 1). Thus it appears that the decision for Roe versus Wade is unconstitutional. The other issue with article one of the fourteenth Amendment, is the portion that speaks of being born in the United States automatically makes one citizen. Many individuals assume that once born on U.S. soil, he or she is automatically a citizen. According to Dr. John C. Eastman, professor of Law and Dean of Chapman University of Law (2005), this is not the case. Eastman (2005) states: There are between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants in this country right now. One of the draws for them to come here has been this erroneous notion of birthright citizenship, and that s created huge problems (para. 12). Eastman is explaining how many people seem to ignore or misunderstand the subject to the jurisdiction clause and assume they are citizens simply because they were born in the United States. (U.S. Const, amendment 14, article 1). This influx of illegal immigrants can lead to huge population issues. Eastman (2005) goes on the express that the founding fathers knew that, with a government like the U.S., a large influx of people could be an issue for those that are used to governing themselves (para. 15). In order to elucidate, justify and prevent problems, the second and fourteenth amendment, I propose that two new amendments be written and put into effect, thus invalidating the second Amendment and section one of the fourteenth amendment. The twenty-eight amendment, replacing the second amendment, shall state:
Military individuals, citizens, and individuals of legal residents shall retain the right to bear arms in order to preserve the free country in which already exists. Those listed as having this right that have been convicted of felons, or serious crimes, as well as citizens who are recognized or registered as mentally ill, shall be refused this right. The Supreme Court shall decide the severity of the mental illness for unclear cases. The twenty-ninth amendment will only invalidate the first article of the fourteenth amendment. This twenty-ninth amendment will state exactly what the fourteenth amendment states with the exception of article one. This new article one will state: Individuals born in the United States must have proof that one of two parents is a citizen in the United States to be a deemed a citizen. Those that have immigrated to the United States and intend to become citizens must take a citizenship test; those individuals must have a passing grade of 70 percent or higher on the citizenship test to be granted citizenship. Citizens shall retain their rights, privileges and immunities respectively; no State or form of United States government has the power to take away life [including unborn persons with a heartbeat], liberty, or property unless these privileges have been used against the wellbeing of the public, against individuals, or used for evil. The Supreme Court shall define evil and it shall be taken case by case). The steps of due process shall be in effect when deciding if an individual is worthy of losing these privileges. As it is obvious, parts of the Constitution are unclear and need to be updated as well as clarified. The amendments that meet the previously mentioned criteria are the second and the fourteenth amendments. The second amendment uses the vague term
militia to determine who can bear arms. The confusion and unjust use of the fourteenth Amendment has instilled this hypocritical thought that taking away a life inside the womb is justifiable. It has also encouraged this false idea with illegal immigrants that birth on U.S soil grants automatic citizenship. With the suggested changes, the society of the United States will be able to run smoother, more justly, and live in a more united manner.
Cornel, Saul. (2008). The Second Amendment Goes to Court. Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, pp. 2. Retrieved from http://origins.osu.edu/article/secondamendment-goes-court/page/0/1. Elbrel, Fred. (2007-2013). Transcript of Dr. John C. Eastman video presentation on 14 th Amendment and birthright citizenship. Para. 12, 15. http://www.14thamendment.us/info/john_eastman_14_amendment_transcript.html RT. (2013, January 10). Whale in a fish tank is a bad idea [Video file]. Retrieved from http://rt.com/shows/bit-pciture/whale-fish-tank-bad/. U.S Constitution, amendment 14, section 1.