Views on the U.S. Constitution - Research Paper Example

?Views on the U.S. Constitution As a document that was ratified in 1787, only a few years after the United s won its independence from England, it is expected that the Constitution would no longer be able to deal well with the current challenges that the government and the people are facing. Apparently, the US Constitution is not very long and it basically deals only with the establishment of a federal government while, at the same time, iterating the rights that are accorded to the state. A brief glance on the document would show that there are only four major parts. The first three points out distinct rights and responsibilities of the three branches of the national government, the legislative branch, the executive branch. The fourth is about the states and their rights as well. In all the provisions covered by the four major parts, it is clear that these are still very general. This may be considered as a sign that the government itself, led by the Founding Fathers, was still wanting in experience. However, as an outline of governance, it can be said that the US Constitution had already provided the bases of what kind of society and country would be built in the succeeding years. It is clear that its being less detailed had become an advantage. This provided the succeeding governments and policymakers the opportunity to introduce amendments to the Constitution itself and to create laws that would further add substance to it. Aside from the role of legislation in improving the Constitution, the judicial branch also contributed to making it more applicable to current realities. This is done through judicial reviews, wherein the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and applies it in order to judge certain cases. If no such judicial reviews or legislations were done, the US Constitution would certainly be inadequate and as a document that was created immediately after the country was founded, it would have lost its relevance already. The major strengths of the US Constitution may not be found in its original version or the one ratified in 1787. Instead, it can be found in the succeeding amendments made, particularly the Bill of Rights. It is in the Bill of Rights that every citizen in the country is granted is assured of his rights as a both as a human being and as an American. The Bill of Rights is essentially what makes the Constitution and the country not just democratic in words but also in practice. The original version that was ratified in the early years of the nation was basically meant to establish a governmental organization so that the business of ruling a country could immediately begin. It was only correct that such concern was immediately addressed more than anything else at that time. However, once the government is in place, it was urgent that the rights of the citizens be immediately enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, “the great strengths of the US Constitution lie in the civil and political freedoms it accords citizens” (Blau & Moncada18). The original US Constitution definitely had many flaws and weaknesses. One glaring weakness was that there was no Bill of Rights at all. Again, this may be explained by the fact that the framers of the Constitution were more concerned with the organization of the government, which was only natural considering that the country had just been established and a sovereign state had to take over. This weakness, however, was promptly taken care of with the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution still has a weakness though. It is clear that the states have been granted with too much rights that it would seem that the federal government would not be able to perform its responsibilities the well (Kommers & Finn 39). The federal government has to refer to the will of the states whose perspectives may be based more on what they individually see as distinct governing bodies instead of being a part of one nation. Article IV of the Constitution outlines the rights of the states as against the responsibility of the federal government. The first specific part of the US Constitution that I most agree with is in Article II, Section 4, which states that “the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (US Constitution). This is important because it clearly provides the people with the means of removing national leaders from power if they are found to be abusive, corrupt or, or traitorous. In a real democracy, it is necessary for people to have the means of effecting immediate change in order to save the country from tyranny and corruption. This section of Article II clearly explains that people need not wait for elections to effect such change. Another part of the Constitution that I most agree with is Section 2 of Article III, which states that “the Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed” (US Constitution). This explicitly points out that even the courts should be democratic. Not all countries practice trial by jury and this makes the judge very powerful. The case would be subject to the whims of the judge. Article III of the Constitution, however, clearly explains that the criminal courts in the US are to be held with a jury. It is the Bill of Rights, particularly Amendment 1 which I find to be the most agreeable part of the Constitution. This states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Constitution). This essentially enshrines the very essence of democracy. Without this part, the US could easily fall victim to rulers who would establish autocratic rule. When it comes to the parts that I do not find agreeable, the first that would come to mind is Section 3 of Article I. This states that “the Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided” (US Constitution). For me, it is best that the Vice President, being part of the executive branch, should have no role to play at all in the creation of laws as a legislator. He may be lobby or campaign for a bill but he should be excluded from deliberations because of his status as part of the executive body. Amendment 2, which was ratified in 1791, is another provision that I do not agree with. The provision states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (US Constitution). This provision could be taken advantage of by groups who seek to the destruction of the US government by arming themselves. In fact, far right militias have been known to cite this provision as they insist on their right to bear arms. Section 3 of Article IV is not also agreeable as it basically deprives the government of flexibility in establishing administrative control over the states. This portion says that “new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress” (US Constitution). It is a fact that the federal setup would encourage localism among the people living in each state. There is the tendency to overlook the well-being of the entire country and favor instead the state. This tendency would naturally lead to national disunity and would render the federal government less effective in pursuing its own goals and programs. It should be the national legislative bodies that should be decisive when it comes to the merging, separation, and establishment of states. The suggested changes in the Constitution would be on the provisions that I have pointed out as disagreeable. Since these parts of the Constitution are found to be wrong or inadequate, these should be amended. These provisions are: 1. Article I, Section 3 The Vice President, being part of the executive branch and immediate successor to the president, should not be given any role in the formulation of laws, particularly in the senate. His participation, even if it is only limited to draws after a senate vote, runs counter to the essence of separation between the branches of government. 2. Amendment 2, and The formulation of this particular part of the Constitution should be changed in order to clarify that right to bear arms should not be made as an excuse to conduct illegal activities with it. Such rights should be limited to only those who deserve it. 3. Article IV, Section 3 While the existence of the states is recognized, the Constitution should be clear that the federal government is more decisive than the state governments, especially when it comes to changes in the political and territorial divisions. Works Cited Blau, Judith and Alberto Moncada. Justice in the United States: Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006. Kommers, Donald and John Finn. American Constitutional Law. Wadsworth, 1998. US Constitution. The Constitution of the United States. 05 March 2012 . Read More