The Constitution Law Of The Land Or
The Fundamental law: Law Of The Land Or Outdated News Essay, Research Paper
The Fundamental law: Law of the Land or Outdated News? Our fundamental law was written over a century ago, by our sires who had thebest purposes. But what they did non hold was a manner to foretell how our society hasevolved, and how the Supreme Law of the Land would come under inquiry. Many partsof the Constitution have been left unfastened to interpretation due to the altering times andstagnance of the Constitution itself. How would our sires feel about new issuesarising? Their original purpose is something we do non cognize. But different argumentsprovide many different sentiments in the populace, and do debate whether or non theConstitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land. Some subjects are more discussed thanothers. In my sentiment, the right to bear weaponries is invariably under inquiry. Free address isalso being brought up, particularly in the instance of music and telecasting. The First Amendment grants us the freedom of address. This gives us as citizensthe right to state what we want, and to show our feelings. But recently, Congress seems tohave been knocking many locales for free address. Television talk shows, wordss in music, and even some publications have been beginnings of contention. But what can go on? Can Congress set a prohibition on these things? But no affair what the content of the talk showis, or how violative the blame wordss are, civil libertarians have taken no stairss to regulatethese things, because of their belief in the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitutionbelieved that to hold a successful democracy, there must be a free exchange of thoughts andthoughts between all people and authorities. The First Amendment is a contemplation of thisbelief. But did they image Jerry Springer holding the KKK on his show, or the 2 LiveCrew blame group naming adult females the B word, and utilizing utmost profanity in all of theirsongs? It is difficult to believe they did. And whenever talk of halting these shows orgroups come up, so does the of all time familiar words of the First Amendment Congress shallmake no jurisprudence & # 8230 ; foreshortening the freedom of address or of the imperativeness. But there is someinterpretation of the First Amendment for our protection. Address that is consideredobscene, false, or incendiary is non protected under the First Amendment. Now the FirstAmendment does non state this in its words, but this has been the reading of it inrecent old ages. In the Woll reader, there is an extract by John Stuart Mill that discusses theFirst Amendment rights. He believes that although free address and imperativeness is a right grantedby the Constitution, there must be boundaries placed on them. But this brings up anotherquestion. Where do you pull boundaries? Where does one pull the line that a talkshows content is excessively obscene, or a vocal is excessively coarse to be aired? What is the definitionof obscene? Of vulgar? There are no disagreements in the Constitution that define theseterms or the limitations that should be used. It merely says freedom of the address and imperativeness. Period. So should we allow these shows and vocals to be aired to the populace, free for viewingby our kids and waxy young person? One must besides maintain in head the creative person andwriters that have come under fire. These wordss may be the voice of the instrumentalist, and thereason they are so coarse is because that is all they saw turning up. Violence in ourinner-cities, coupled with the deficiency of a solid instruction can take to people who know noother life other than an obscene one. So do they have the right to set these wordss on ourstores shelves? If you were a rigorous constitutionalist, so yes these people have the rightto voice their sentiment. More broad positions would believe that this refuse has no topographic point inour society, and is a blazing maltreatment of the rights granted to us. To happen a in-between land anda via media is the challenge, but no reply is within sight. In colonial times, most work forces kept guns and pieces to protect themselves. Thereason for this is because frequently times, the lone defence against the British and Indians werethemselves or local reserves. This was seen as the best manner to maintain peace on order amongthe settlements. The Second Amendment was passed to guarantee this right for these grounds. But the times have changed, and there are no longer local or province reservess. We now havepolice forces, sheriffs, and other local jurisprudence bureaus to function and protect us. As citizens,
and as revenue enhancement remunerators, this P
rotection is there for us whenever we need. We no longer mustdefend ourselves from British invasion, or will have to quickly organize our neighborhoodinto a force that is ready for battle. So there is no longer a need for citizens to keep andbear arms, right? Wrong. This is another amendment that has come under a lot ofcontroversy lately. Guns are a big concern of our society today. With gang violence, kidsshooting each other, and accidental deaths due to ignorant parents who do not lock uptheir guns, there have been major moves to get the guns off the streets. But this wouldalso force many responsible gun owners to give up their firearms also. The National RifleAssociation has been a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, saying it is theirConstitutional right to keep their weapons. Gun supporters say that many of them usetheir guns for hunting and recreational purposes, and feel safer at home against break-insbecause they have guns for their protection. But the issue of gun control also has itsbacking. The Brady Bill, passed in 1993, imposed a five day waiting period for handguns. Is this bill unconstitutional? I do not think so, but if there were a bill to ban all weapons,then it would be. But did the Framers have the society we live in today in mind when theywrote this amendment? I feel at the time, the bill was passed out of necessity, in order toprotect themselves. Not for gangsters to hold up liquor stores, or have shoot-outs withrival gangs. This amendment, like the freedom of speech and press, is up for debate, andis the root of a lot of controversy. There is no question that at the writing of the Constitution, the Framers had thebest intentions. They were trying to write a constitution that would withstand the ages. Aconstitution that would become the supreme law of the land, and set the framework for astrong democratic government superior to all others. But there was one thing missing thatwould have made the Constitution perfect. A crystal ball. The Framers had no way to seehow our country would develop and flourish. They wrote the best Constitutional possiblefor the time. Back then, there were no rap groups to abuse the freedom of speech. It wasjust a way to make sure the government could never silence the voice of the people. Theycould not know that we would develop an intricate law system, with strong police forcesin almost every town, and strong judges and courts backing these forces. We also have astrong national armed force, ready to mobilize at a moments notice, whenever ourcountries freedom is being threatened. The criminal justice system we have developedover the years is excellent, and makes the need to bear arms for protection and invasionalmost non-existent. It is understandable that there are responsible people who use gunsfor recreation, but once again, the Framers had no way of foreseeing these people, andother groups like the NRA forming. Although the Framers had no idea of what the future would hold for our country,they did have the right intention. This is what is most important. We must understandthat the Framers were doing what was best for our country. If we can understand that,then we can work for the future. If we can understand the basic concepts and purpose ofthe Framers, we can implement these same intentions to a more modern law. We canratify the Constitution to apply to the changing times, although it is very hard to do, butnot impossible. But we must first understand the original intent. We must not just passthe Constitution off as an outdated governing body. It is a foundation, to help form amore perfect law of the land, so generations after ours will be able to follow its writingsand teachings, both old and new. So what is the final verdict? Is the Constitution outdated, or is it still the SupremeLaw of the Land? Well, I believe that it is a little of both. If we were to take theConstitution word for word, then it can be seen as a piece of writing that cannot governour changing times. But if we can interpret it to fit our times, then it is still fine. I am surethat the Framers, if they could see how our world has changed, would be more than happyto let us interpret it to make it current. After all, when they wrote this marvelous work ofart, the had the best intentions for the people as well as the country in mind. By allowingthe Constitution to change slightly, we can hold the values that the Framers had, whichwas to do the best for our country.