Category: Constitution

In the video, the main topic is the discussion of constitutional issues and the organization of state power. Gorsuch says that the division of state power is done for the more successful functioning of democracy. Thus, a bicameral parliament can more likely guarantee the adoption of a law to improve the life of society. The executive branch monitors compliance with the correct execution of the law, while the judiciary relies on the resolution of offenses.

The importance of separation lies in the long-term perspective of the functioning of democracy. Thus, when the legislature adopts national laws, consideration goes through several stages. However, the executive branch will not choose, and the decision will not be agreed with the minority. If one branch of government can be blamed for the conclusion of the other, then laws and regulations will be implemented dishonestly.

The rule of law is also crucial for the successful functioning of a democratic system. First of all, the power depends on such factors as the stability of laws and their clear presentation. Moreover, to make it easier for ordinary people to understand, the spells should not be too voluminous. Additionally, it ensures that people and their opinions are heard regardless of social status. Thus, their rights are carefully protected by distributing power into three branches.

Gorsuch raises the issue of federalism in terms of state governance. Thus, the United States realized that to implement laws and freedoms successfully. It is necessary to cede some of the powers to the federal authorities. In this regard, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution is essential. It ensures that powers not reserved by the Constitution to the United States are committed to the states. Thus, due to experience and examples, it is possible to choose the perfect system for the functioning of the legislative procedure.

Alan Westin identifies four primary functions of privacy: personal autonomy, emotional release, self-evaluation, and limited and protected communication. The first one refers to how privacy is central to maintaining ones sense of individuality (Halbert & Inguilli, 2014). Emotional release means the individuals need to relieve themselves of the psychological stress that is inseparable from living n a society for which privacy is also indispensable (Halbert & Inguilli, 2014). Privacy is also important for self-evaluation because it is often a preliminary condition for a thorough self-reflection (Halbert & Inguilli, 2014). As for limited and protected communication, privacy is essential for allowing people to share sensitive information only with those they want instead of everyone.

The Constitution does not mention the right to privacy explicitly. The position of the Supreme Court in this regard is roughly consistent with this in the sense that it does not focus on privacy per se. For example, in City of Ontario v. Quon, the Supreme Court was only concerned with privacy insofar as it related to the permissibility of a governmental search of text messages (Halbert & Inguilli, 2014). In other words, the court did not outline a specific right to privacy but merely elaborated on the technicalities of allowing a search on a directly relevant constitutional basis. Hence, to the extent that the Supreme Court finds privacy in the Constitution, it is justified in doing so.

Westin and the Supreme Court generally coincide in their view of privacy. In Riley v. California, the court stated that searching a cell phone without a warrant is illegal and recognized the swiftly increasing value of digital devices to peoples identities (Halbert & Inguilli, 2014). The importance of being secure in ones digital communication corresponds directly to Westins function of limited and protected communication. Similarly, the amount of personal information stored on an average cellphone can make it an important component of the extended self, making it valuable for both personal autonomy and self-reflation. Thus, the Supreme Courts position on privacy implicitly recognizes the value of privacy functions as defined by Westin.

Reference

Halbert, T., & Inguilli, E. (2014). Law and ethics in the business environment (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

The independence of the United States after the Revolutionary War began with the establishment of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were written in 1777 and stemming from wartime urgency, its progress was slowed by fears of central authority and extensive land claims by states (History, 2021, para. 1). From these fears, several federal govern emerged, one of which is its inability to control commerce and foreign policy. The other exemplar issue was the lack of judicial authorities. While the first issue imbalanced the national economy, the second one prevented it from solving interstate disputes.

The Constitution that corrected the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation was created and established in the atmosphere of debate. One of the questions that made the politicians disagree was the scale of representation. It was not clear how much people should be involved in the federal government that presented the interests of each state. Some proposed equal representatives amount, while others highlighted the importance of population in the count (Corbett et al., 2014). The other question concerned the slaves: namely, slaveholders argued that the servants should have been counted in the population for a state to represent more power.

Finally, there was a hot discussion of the democracy place in the Constitution which divided the members of the Congress into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists believed that the Constitution was a perfect way of establishing a strong federal government that would regulate the nation as a republic; its proponents include John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison (Corbett et al., 2014). In turn, the Anti-Federalists argued that centralization was exceedingly dangerous for the freedom of the states and the citizens, which would lead to inequalities; such opinion was held by Melancton Smith (Corbett et al., 2014). In the end, the Constitution was approved, yet only a little more than half of the Congressmen supported it.

References

Corbett, P. S., Janssen, V., Lund, J. M., Pfannestiel, T., Waskiewicz, S., & Vickery, P. (2014). U.S. history. OpenStax. Web.

History. (2021). Articles of Confederation. Web.

Drafted in 1776 and ratified on 1 March 1781, the Articles of Confederation was the first constitution for the government of the colonies. It remained an essential tool for states unity until 1 June 1788 when the constitution came promulgated. However, the central governments had limited powers under the rule of the Articles. It proposed a weak confederation of the independent states. The result was the creation of an extremely weak government that ended up failing in its mandate.

Faced with the weaknesses of the Articles, the need for a strict binding rule was imminent; hence the drafting of the current constitution in 1787. The two sets of law proposed governments that were more democratic. However, the Articles gave more power to the people and the states. The Second Continental Congress made changes to the Article through the borders and reduced the Congress powers.

The Articles of Confederation had other weaknesses, as noted in the paragraphs. It was difficult to have a strong central government as the Articles did not provide for an executive head to lead the government and had a weak judicial system with no federal courts. It was also difficult to make any change in the documents. Certain pertinent resolutions like adoption of treaties, war issues and regulation of coinage required at least nine of the member states to ratify through voting.

Nevertheless, the Articles of Confederation was used as a stepping stone towards the current constitution. The general powers for the central government were clearly outlined in the Articles of confederation and hence adopted by the constitution.

The Articles also settled territorial arguments that saw an expansion of the U.S. The most notable territorial argument was over the Ohio Valley, which was achieved through the Land Ordnance of 1785. It provided that the government was to sale the Old Northwest (Ranney & Austin, p.63). The proceeds were to be used to settle national financial obligations. In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance legislated and provided guidelines on the management of Old Northwest. It provided for logical admission of all states to the Union.

In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation was generally weak. It appeared to remain democratic only because it provided more powers and rights to the states. Despite the several successes the Articles had, there were enormous weaknesses and failures. The drafting of the current constitution relied much on the failures of these Articles. Therefore, a strong, democratic, central government was created with its current constitution.

Works Cited

McKay, David. The Reluctant European: Europe as an Issue in British politics. Britain at the Polls 2005, Ed. John Bartle, Anthony King. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006. 78-97. Print.

Ranney, Austin. The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government: Its Origins and Present State. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004. Print.

Seyd, Patrick. Tony Blair and New Labor. New Labor Triumphs: Britain at the Polls, Ed. Anthony King et al. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 2008. 49-75. Print.

Anthony Champagne is a renowned professor at the University of Texas at Dallas. He has studied political science, and in his time, he has managed to champion three teaching awards. He is a writer who has authored books on legal representation of the low-standard people, the politics of Texas, and the election of judges, among others (Champagne The Selection and Retention of Judges in Texas 53). Based on Texas politics and congressional history, he has authored Congressman Sam Rayburn with over 130 verbal accounts with the help of his associates (Champagne The Selection and Retention of Judges in Texas 53). Since Champagne is published Boston Connection on Five Decades of House Democratic Leadership, which makes his article a credible source with considering as a repository of essential information and key conclusions from recent academic research..

According to the Jacobson v. Massachusetts Supreme Court case, there was an outbreak of smallpox in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There was a constitution of compulsory vaccination whereby if a person did not abide by the rules, they were fined (Mariner et al. 582). An individual named Henning Jacobson was fined $5 for refusing to be vaccinated. In the Supreme Court, she challenged his conviction of violating his liberty under the constitution. John Marshall Harlan a justice in Supreme Court ruled out that it was the duty of police to pass meaningful laws for the benefit of the community. As a result, four mandatory constitutional standards were developed for compulsory vaccination that would be used even in the future by Harlan.

COVID-19 brought about a state of emergency declaration across the whole world, while also demonstrating the lack of preparedness toward a global health crisis. From the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that the world should be prepared for unprecedented consequences and uncertainties at any given moment (Norouzi et al. 75). Constitution amendments are necessary to ensure safety and health for the whole globe (Chua et al. 1). Among the legal concerns, the constitution must include eminent domain to enable the government to take personal or natural properties whenever an emergency arises (Champagne The Two Roles of Sam Rayburn 5). Such cases can significantly impact the whole population as everyone needs to be guaranteed just compensation. Private property cannot be used for general help as the affected seem to have no justice and fairness. Emergencies exist, and everyone should be ready at any given moment to cope with the situation, but protections accorded within the constitution cannot be overshadowed as that should always remain the rule of law. During the pandemic, rights and freedom are not granted, such as movement and peaceful gatherings. People need to cooperate as the actions do ensure health and safety.

The specified concerns have resulted in several major legal issues. Specifically, the fact that the restriction imposed on U.S. citizens due to the pandemic were technically unconstitutional could be seen as a leeway to the question of whether constitutional rights can be ignored or revoked once a nationwide concern emerges, trumping these standards. Similarly, the extent of a concern in question for it to be seen as a legitimate rationale to abandon constitutional standards could be seen as a concept that required further definition.

Therefore, the issues of vaccination and the related constitutional concerns remain a problem to be addressed today. Vaccination has for long been manifested in combating the spread of infectious diseases. For young people in the field of law the mandatory vaccination law should never be permitted in the future even when the condition is hazardous. Therefore, the government should formulate a policy that allows people to be vaccinated without being forced to. The latter will help people have liberty with their health status. Moreover, the controversy at hand affects the future directly. Specifically, it leads to questioning whether specific health interventions must be made mandatory for all citizens, this, dismissing their constitutional rights. Similarly, the dilemma of restricting peoples mobility as the means of keeping them safe from an epidemic is likely to reoccur in the future, therefore, requiring a shift in healthcare and legal policies.

In conclusion, COVID-19 has been an excellent lesson for people to learn all aspects of life. Everyone needs to be prepared for any uncertainties that can occur in life. Government should have policies guaranteeing property, health, and safety for all people, especially policies on compulsory vaccination.

Works Cited

Champagne, Anthony. The Selection and Retention of Judges in Texas. SWLJ, vol. 40, 1986, p. 53.

Champagne, Anthony. The Two Roles of Sam Rayburn. East Texas Historical Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, 1982, p. 5.

Chua, Alvin Qijia, et al. Health System Resilience in Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons from SINGAPORE.BMJ Global Health, vol. 5, no. 9, 2020, p. 1.

Mariner, Wendy K., George J. Annas, and Leonard H. Glantz. Jacobson v Massachusetts: Its Not Your Great-Great-Grandfathers Public Health law. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 95, no. 4, 2005, pp. 581-590.

Norouzi, Nima, Heshmat-Ullah Khanmohammadi, and Elham Ataei. The Law in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Early Lessons from Uruguay. Hasanuddin Law Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 2021, pp. 75-88.

Constitution is a government agreement whereby it obtains full authority from the governed. It defines the composition of the government, the purpose of the government, and the authorities of each government department. In addition, the relationship between the states, the public, how the government institutions are related to each other, and the government limits are also clearly defined. This essay paper will be discussing deeply the American constitution, how democratic and anti-democratic it has been, and how it should be improved to be more democratic. A democratic government is whereby the public has got the power to decide policy matters directly through a meeting or through votes (Greenberg, 380).

The American constitution has been regarded as among the best constitution globally for its long duration use and remaining unchanged. Despite this view, this constitution has received several criticisms. The American constitution was considered to be undemocratic due to some of its features. For instance, senators were only elected by popular vote which was against the ruling of the legislature. Women and young adults aged between 18 and 20 years were not allowed to vote (Greenberg, 387).

The above aspects in the constitution have changed with time though there are some which are still signifying a lack of democracy.

The American government is using the constitution which was written in 1787 by men who were considered to be exceptionally wise, and then it was approved by conventions by all the states through conventions. The constitutional convention which was held in Philadelphia in 1787 was the one that came up with the constitution. The American constitution was written by men who died a long time ago and its the one ruling up to now. Americans have had no chances to air their views in their constitutional system. The researches are done to show that, most people do not agree on the contents of the ruling constitution (Stimson, 98). The constitution of America is on the other hand considered to be good as it has been applied for a very long time. However, the citizens claim that it does not meet the standards of the current democracy.

The American constitution has been turned down by many states as they consider it to be below the current democratic standards. Most of the advanced democratic states have adopted a very different constitutional system from that of the United States of America. This has acted as a clear sign that the constitutional system of America is not admirable as it lacks a lot of democratic standards. All sorts of the shortcomings which are involved with the constitutional they are solved through the fact that America is not a democracy but a republic (Stimson, 105).

The men who were actively involved in writing the American constitution in 1787 in Philadelphia were later found to be wrong in all aspects such as morally, politically, and constitutionally (Stimson, 107). The framers of the constitution did not show any interest in terminating slavery. It was through the effort of the later generation that slavery was abolished. On the other hand, the American constitution promised all the citizens who were living near the water to be paying lower prices and taxes on the imported goods.

The modern American constitution has a problem of allowing the rise of a complete supreme and huge federal power. Through this, the constitution is not in a position to protect properties or human rights as it is intended. In the American constitution, the legislative branch is much powerful, such that they never wish to vote to avoid giving out those powers. This makes the ruling adopt a one-way ratchet instead of it being a two-way system (Greenberg, 450). At this point, the constitution should change the legislative branch to be democratic to ensure fair ruling among the citizens. In the American constitution, the executive branch is also very powerful. The duties which fall under this branch are not well defined and the policies of non-delegation are not put into effect. As a result of this, a stable unelected lawmaking administration is realized, which executes some duties in a very undemocratic way.

This part of the constitution should be changed to act in a more democratic manner (Greenberg, 462). According to the current American constitution, the use of elections is emphasized so much ignoring the use of lotteries. Depending on the wish of the public it can be fair for some officials to be chosen by lottery, as this would solve most of the challenges which the public is facing. However, the great powers given to the national government are an advantage, as they allowed the problems to be solved deeply and widely.

In addition, one of the greatest violations of democracy is the structure of the courts in relation to the constitution which interprets the laws. A wonderful democratic constitution does not allow government officials to be interpreters of their own powers. The flow of the authority has been distracted by the idea of allowing federal courts to interpret federal powers and the state authorities to be interpreted by the state courts. The judicial body of the American constitution is also a one-way system that contributes towards oppression (Greenberg, 480).

The judiciary acts independently from the legislature and executive as both executive and legislature have failed to execute some of their duties properly. For instance, its their role to select judges but this is ignored. The public considers it better and of much democracy if lower court judges are selected by a lottery of the lawyers who have scored the best in the state bar exam and have been in practice for their profession for not less than five years (Greenberg, 502). The high court judges should as well be elected by a lottery for the lower court judges who have been working for not less than five years. Through this, the legislative body will be able to select qualified judges and remove them in case of illegal actions.

Most Americans argue that the actions of courts were better off during the colonization era than the ones outlined by the constitution. Another outstanding feature of the undemocratic constitution is the composition of the senate. It was well known that each state despite its population density was to have two senators. However it was received with a lot of complaints when one half of the United States population was represented by 18 senators and the other half was represented by 82 senators (Stimson, 255). Around 55% of the population sent twenty senators to Washington to stand for them. Less than 3% of the population sent 20 senators to stand for them in Washington.

Moreover, Electoral College is another feature that makes the American constitution to be viewed as undemocratic. This institution has been known for upsetting the equal representation of the citizens. Its impact on American history has been negative. During the constitutional convention, it received a lot of opposition, but unfortunately, it qualified on a last-minute vote (Stimson, 260). It has never executed its duties and responsibilities as it is required but instead, it has been causing a lot of constitutional crisis. During the events of four presidential elections, citizens ended up with the president who had the least votes, as a result, citizens wanted the Electoral College to be abolished through seven hundred proposals, but unfortunately, the senate was against that action. However, the approval of the constitution was accepted by most of the people because the bill of rights was included.

The undemocratic constitution began during the writing down of the constitution. The framers were very experienced but they were divided in decision making. Some refused even to sign, and the decisions were in the hands of the elected delegates instead of using the popular votes. Another feature of an undemocratic constitution is the congressional power (Stimson, 265). The national government could not lead the economy as the powers of Congress were minimal compared to other democratic governments. Some aspects like social security were made impossible as the central government did not possess some powers to tax incomes.

Some crucial issues lacked clear constitutional authorization such as food and drugs, banking systems, and air safety. Without well-defined regulatory actions, these services were made unavailable to the citizens. Failure to guarantee the right of suffrage, and placing the qualifications of suffrage in the hands of the state was another feature of the undemocratic constitution (Greenberg, 530). As a result of this, some groups of people were excluded such as women, African-Americans, as well as local Americans. In addition, it took a lot of time before women and African Americans could be allowed to cast their votes. In the contents of the American constitution, some issues were not strictly outlined. For instance, it was a routine for the president to lie to Congress, and even the public, and all this was left to pass without any penalties.

In the United States, the judicial powers empower the judges to rule unconstitutional any authority or regulation. This does not matter if the law has been approved by the legislative branch and the presidents signature is put. Judges are appointed instead of being elected. They hold their positions for life making them independent. The main source of the undemocratic constitution is the federalist movement (Greenberg, 570). They acted completely anti-democratic during the time of making the constitutional draft and its approval. The federalists were not considered as an official party at the beginning but during the initial years of American independence, it became one of the main parties. The federalists believed that approval of a democratic constitution will lead to abuse of power and oppression. There were a lot of limits that were placed by the constitution, for instance, the idea of holding an indirect presidential election and unfair elections of the senators.

In conclusion, the united states constitution remains among the best constitutions in the world. During its approval, it was a sure revolutionary as far as giving equality and liberty among all Americans without any form of discrimination. Despite all the criticisms this constitution has received since the time it was written until now, some scholars have been opting for it (Greenberg, 602). The American constitution has got its strengths and weaknesses just like any other constitution from a different state. Weighing its pros and cons and then comparing it to the constitutions of other states, it proves to be among the most successful constitutions.

The fact that it has been in operation since the time it was approved and unchanged, its success has been clearly defined.

Works cited

Greenberg, S.E. and Page, B. Americas Democratic Public, (3^rd ed), ISBN9780205646814. Longman, 2008.

Stimson, F. J. The American Constitution, ISBN1110562802, 9781110562800. BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009.

Introduction

The changes to the Texas Constitution are being implemented rather often. A majority vote can only approve them in a statewide election. In 2017 and 2019, the voters number of amendments has changed, which directly influenced the passing of laws (Patrick et al., 2019). One of the implemented changes not a long time ago concerned some small Texas towns that have trouble finding anybody to serve as a municipal court judge.

Main body

The Texas Constitution forbids a person to hold more than one paid public office at the same time. There is a list of exceptions, for example, for members of the military, reserves. However, a few years ago, there has been a new exception to the law, which concerned judges in small towns, where there may not be many lawyers willing to serve. The special case would allow one person to serve as a municipal court judge in several small towns. However, some cities elect their municipal court judges, and the exception does not cover those elected ones. This year, a new resolution H.J.R. (House Joint Resolution) 72, to extend the more-than-one-city exception to elected municipal court judges was approved (Patrick et al., 2019). The article would consider all the benefits and drawbacks of such a decision.

In 2019, the legislature authorized H.B. 1717 along with the part proposed by H.J.R. 72. The law will be enacted on January 1, 2020, but only if the voters approve the constitutional amendment (Patrick et al., 2019). The bill is designed to make an exception in the law and allow a person to hold the municipal judges office for more than one town at the same time. This would help small cities in acquiring judges and lawyers easier. Nowadays, many urban units of local government cannot allow having a municipal judge, which might pose a severe problem. There are lots of domestic violence, minor and major offenses in such places, which is hard to regulate without a judge.

The number of Democrats seemed to favor this decision because it had allowed local municipalities to have their judge. Moreover, the local authorities tried to move this law forward because it made their life more comfortable. However, some Republicans were against creating a new exception to the old law. The cities residents had also seen this regulation as something wrong because allowing a person to hold elected office could destroy the single-office rule and create several other problems.

As the laws supporters mentioned, Proposition 1 would make access to qualified judges for all cities easier. This amendment could be an extension of the current law because when a local court does not have qualified judges, societys negative impact could soon follow. Proposition 1 would make the judging system in the Texas State more effective and efficient, beneficial to small rural towns. The state would have to pay for judicial training, which could benefit more than just one small town. Furthermore, the smaller cities do not possess enough people who are willing to serve as judges there.

However, at the same time, as critics of the law mentioned, Proposition 1 could create several potential problems. For example, it would make another exception to the constitutional law against specific elected individuals who try to hold more than one government-paid public office. That could create a space for further exceptions and, therefore, liquidate the old law altogether. Moreover, the critics have also mentioned that if judges would be allowed to work in more than one court, they could not give each court adequate focus. Therefore, their words completely contradicted the terms of the supporters.

If I were a state legislator, I would also dismiss Proposition 1 because it requires high implementation costs. Moreover, if the state had to pay for more than one judges office, they could lose a significant sum of money. Furthermore, if the judicial system indeed exacerbates because judges lose their concentration on one particular place, the voters will lose their trust in the judging system altogether. Therefore, as a state legislator, I would vote strictly against the new amendment. For the state, it is somewhat risky, and the risks are indeed very high.

However, as a voter, I would be for Proposition 1 because it sounds incredible on the paper. It does not describe the amendments risks, the potential losses, and the worsening of the judging system. The formulation of Proposition 1 sounds as if the voter is going to save the small towns from lawlessness and chaos. Nevertheless, it is not entirely accurate and sometimes even faulty.

Despite the advertisement of the first amendment, it had failed during the process of voting. Critics had pointed out that the change proposed by it could be done without the unnecessary interferences in the Constitution, by city and county governments. In my opinion, the critics point of view ended up being the right one because the proposition had several risks to the budget. Moreover, the amendment had several flaws and could have allowed eradicating the prohibition, which would harm the judging system.

Conclusion

To conclude, I think it was for the best that the first proposition failed, because, it had unjustified risks. Furthermore, although it allowed one judge to have several government-paid offices, it had created conditions for destroying the existing prohibition. Thus, one judge would be divided in their attention towards the places they have to be in. In my opinion, it would also hurt the whole Texas State system, which is unwanted.

References

Patrick, D., Bonnen, D., Archer, J. (2019). Analyses of proposed constitutional amendments. Texas Legislative Council, 86th Regular Session. Web.

Introduction

It is hard to disagree that same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial topics in the U.S. Many people consider such marriages a fundamental right of humans, while others find them inappropriate and try to cancel this tendency. Same-sex marriages have long and challenging relationships with federalism, and the purpose of this paper is to discuss the most essential aspects of this history.

Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism

To begin with, one may notice that state governments have traditionally controlled this issue, and there were many states that never wanted to make this tendency legal. However, since 2015, all states have been made to legalize same-sex unions, according to the federal ruling (Fisher). Currently, the Constitution does not directly indicate ones right to marry a person of the same-sex, but some articles somehow support this right. For example, the 14th amendment and basic Constitutional notions of freedom mean same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry (Fisher). Therefore, Americans expect that soon the rights of LGBT persons will be supported directly by this supreme law.

Conflicts and Shifts in the Balance of Power

One of the main shifts happened in 2015 when the Supreme Court announced same-sex marriage to be legal and protected by the Constitution in all states. The first case to consider the equality of such unions was Baker v. Nelson in 1972 (Law). While the Supreme Court did not allow gay marriage to happen, this was a turning point in history because attention was drawn to the concern (Law). Finally, as for the conflicts arising due to the principle of federalism, people were not satisfied with having some states for and some  against such unions because this system divided the country and deprived some LGBT persons of their rights.

Conclusion

To draw a conclusion, one may say that the fight for the freedoms and happiness of LGBT representatives is not finished yet. While it is expected that the Constitution will soon address their rights directly and same-sex marriages are now legalized, many Americans still refuse to accept these unions. Fortunately, the Supreme Court currently supports same-sex unions, and other positive changes are coming.

Works Cited

Fisher, Daniel. Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is a Constitutional Right. Forbes, Web.

Law, Tara. 9 Landmark Supreme Court Cases That Shaped LGBTQ Rights in America. Time, Web.

Amendment Process: Proposals and Ratifications

Adding an amendment to the United States Constitution is a difficult and lengthy process. It is no wonder an amendment has not been added to the Constitution since 1992. The first ten amendments of the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. They were created to ensure that the basic rights of individuals were protected. Knowing the Constitution would require changes in the future, the Framers of the Constitution included Article 5. This section of the Constitution describes the different processes on how to ratify an amendment. There are two ways an amendment can be proposed and two ways it can be ratified, resulting in a total of four ways an amendment can be added to the Constitution. Despite there being four methods, only two have been used to ratify an amendment.

In order for an amendment to be added to the Constitution, it first needs to be proposed. This can be done in one of two ways. Either by a two-thirds vote in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, which has been used for all 27 amendments to the Constitution, or by voting at a national amendment convention at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures. The two methods an amendment can be ratified are if three-fourths of the state legislatures vote in favor of the proposed amendment. This method is considered the “traditional” method as it has been used countless times. The other method requires three-fourths of the approval of the state on the amendment at a special convention called on by the state. This method of ratifying has only been used once for the Twenty-First Amendment.

Complex Paths to Constitutional Evolution

The most widely used method of amending the Constitution includes a proposal of the amendment by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives and by the ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The second way of amending the Constitution consists of the same proposal as the previous one but requires the ratification by three-fourths of the states at a special convention. The other two methods that have not been used to add an amendment to the Constitution are proposed by voting at a constitutional convention and ratified by either three-fourths of the state legislatures or by three-fourths of the states at a special convention.

Although there are four possible ways of adding an amendment to the Constitution, they all prove to be difficult and require widespread support. When first creating the Bill of Rights, two hundred amendments were proposed, and only ten became ratified. Although the process can be helpful in preventing an amendment that is unjust from being added to the Constitution, it makes it more difficult for the Constitution to progress along with society.

The Framers of the Constitution created the amendment process as they knew changes in society were imminent. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for such wide support for ratification, and this could lead to problems about whether or not the Constitution is up to date on where we are in the twenty-first century.

References:

1. Madison, James. (1787). The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Classics.
2. Amar, Akhil Reed. (2012). America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By. New York: Basic Books.
3. Amar, Akhil Reed. (2000). The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. New Haven: Yale University Press.
4. Rakove, Jack N. (1996). Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Vintage Books.
5. Amar, Akhil Reed. (2017). “The Case for a National Popular Vote in the Selection of the President.” Yale Law Journal, 97(6), 1111-1187.
6. Tushnet, Mark V. (2008). I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press.

Constitutional Roots: U.S. Citizenship and Rights

U.S. citizenship is tied to the Constitution in several ways. Many of these attributes are freedom of speech, punishment for crime, searches, and confiscation. The U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, ensuring citizens amend the law, allowing them the right to vote, own property, or seek elective office, and more. Many of these modifications we use today. For example, women and men over the age of 18 are allowed to vote. Also, people have the right to have any kind of religion they want. U.S. citizenship is tied to the Constitution in some ways. The first reason why American citizenship is tied to the Constitution is that people have the right to be punished for their crimes.

The Constitution, the 8th Amendment, provides that no excessive bail may be required, nor excessive fines, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed. The 8th Amendment also states that bail is the amount of money an accused person can be asked to send to appear in court. In modern U.S. citizenship, if you don’t appear in court, the court will issue an arrest warrant for you, which means you’ll go to jail if you’re caught doing something you shouldn’t be doing. you did. did not appear in court. Chances are they’ll send someone in and arrest you. The second reason why U.S. citizenship is attached to the Constitution is that people have the right to free speech, which means that people have the right to say what they want to say.

The British Bill of Rights provided that when the Catholic King, James II, was removed from the British throne in 1688, Parliament nevertheless insisted that William and Mary be subject to the Bill of Rights. This document summarizes the powers that Parliament has sought since the 1628 Petition for RightsU.S. citizenship is tied to the Constitution in many ways. Many of these attributes are freedom of speech, punishment for crime, searches, and confiscation. The U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, ensuring citizens amend the law, allowing them the right to vote, own property, or seek elective office, and more. Many of these modifications we use today. For example, women and men over the age of 18 are allowed to vote. Also, people have the right to have any kind of religion they want.

Constitutional Foundations: Crime, Speech, and Rights

U.S. citizenship is tied to the Constitution in a number of ways. The first reason why American citizenship is tied to the Constitution is that people have the right to be punished for their crimes. The Constitution, the 8th Amendment, provides that no excessive bail may be required, nor excessive fines, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed. The 8th Amendment also states that bail is the amount of money an accused person can be asked to send to appear in court. In modern U.S. citizenship, if you don’t appear in court, the court will issue an arrest warrant for you, which means you’ll go to jail if you’re caught doing something you shouldn’t be doing. you did. did not appear in court.

Chances are they’ll send someone in and arrest you. The second reason why U.S. citizenship is attached to the Constitution is that people have the right to free speech, which means that people have the right to say what they want to say. The British Bill of Rights provided that when the Catholic King, James II, was removed from the British throne in 1688, Parliament nevertheless insisted that William and Mary be subject to the Bill of Rights. This document summarizes the powers that Parliament has sought since the 1628 Petition for RightsAs for the right to free speech, it stipulates that debates or proceedings in Parliament shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or venue outside of Parliament.

The Constitution also states that the Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and the press guarantees everyone the right to speak, publish and otherwise express his opinion. Many people in the modern American nationality focus on working with the government and speaking to imply what they mean so that people take the light on the senate or government. Finally, U.S. citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution through searches and seizures. In the document Two Treatises of Government, John Lock states that the English philosopher John Locke believed that all men have an equal natural right to life, liberty, and property. What he meant by the property was that people could buy their property, and other people couldn’t enter the house unless the person said so or they had an order to let them in by law.

Constitutional Safeguards: Rights and Responsibilities

The Constitution provides for the Fourth Amendment that people have the right to be safe in their person, home, papers, and properties, from unreasonable search and seizure, and from violation. and no command will be given. Today, modern American citizenship still plays an important role. If the law (police) doesn’t have a warrant to enter your home, they can’t because it’s your personal property. In short, many people enjoy these rights because they are U.S. citizens. The Constitution says that we, the people of the United States, must form a perfect union, establish justice, ensure internal tranquility, secure a common defense, and promote welfare.

General and secure blessings of freedom to ourselves, and our Posterity simply declares that we have freedom of speech and punishment for crimes, searches, and arrests, for we are U.S. citizens. U.S. citizenship is tied to the Constitution in several ways. Many of these attributes are freedom of speech, punishment for crime, searches, and confiscation. The U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, ensuring citizens amend the law, allowing them the right to vote, own property, or seek elective office, and more. Many of these modifications we use today. For example, women and men over the age of 18 are allowed to vote. Also, people have the right to have any kind of religion they want. U.S. citizenship is tied to the Constitution in some ways.

The first reason why American citizenship is tied to the Constitution is that people have the right to be punished for their crimes. The Constitution, the 8th Amendment, provides that no excessive bail may be required, nor excessive fines, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed. The 8th Amendment also states that bail is the amount of money an accused person can be asked to send to appear in court. In modern U.S. citizenship, if you don’t appear in court, the court will issue an arrest warrant for you, which means you’ll go to jail if you’re caught doing something you shouldn’t be doing. you did. did not appear in court. Chances are they’ll send someone in and arrest you. The second reason why U.S. citizenship is attached to the Constitution is that people have the right to free speech, which means that people have the right to say what they want to say.

References:

1. U.S. Constitution of 1787, United States Constitution. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
2. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “Eighth Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment
3. The British Bill of Rights, “Bill of Rights 1689.” The National Archives. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
4. “Two Treatises of Government” by John Locke, Locke, John. “Two Treatises of Government.” Project Gutenberg. [Online]. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370