After reading How not to read the Constitution written by Tribe and Dorf, assess to what degree you view the Constitution as a blueprint for governing. How much of a Constitution should be fixed and how much should be flexible?
In my opinion, the Constitution is merely a framework for how our society should be ran in order to keep the liberties of people safe and free from tyranny. In various amendments they use words and phrases that can be interpreted in many different ways and can also mean a lot of things. However, there are no clear definitions of these words from the people who wrote them. I think that the reason why they did this was because they knew that our nation would be ever changing and wanted to make sure that this Constitution would be applicable for over hundreds and hundreds of years to come. I think that our Constitution is a great example of a perfect balance of flexibility and stability. There are some laws that obviously should be fixed, like freedom of speech, but rules for electing president and vice president and who is allowed to be elected can be somewhat flexible because things may change in the future where we would need to make provisions to those rules.
The U.S. Constitution provides an excellent framework for our government, but should not be considered a full-fledged blueprint for how a government should run a nation. As times and circumstances change, the meaning of the Constitution should be just as adaptable. The basic rights, such as life and liberty, and the set-up of government should stay the same, but the wording and interpretation of the amendments should be flexible in order to accommodate certain situations. This does not mean that the Constitution should be interpreted to further the ends of groups or individuals, but rather it should be open to discussion and adjustments if old rulings are out-dated. The authors of the Constitution recognized that times would change, so they left out some specifics such as acceptable punishments. This leaves room for the people of our day to make the changes necessary in order to keep the government fair and modern.
To a very little degree do I believe that the constitution is a blueprint for governing the nation. Just like the text states, the constitution is only a framework; setting the boundaries of how the nation should be run. It is a framework to show and give the rights to the citizens keeping them away from experiencing any form of tyranny. This article mainly talks about how the framers wrote the constitution very vaguely; leaving people interpreting it in different ways. in the constitution some fixed laws should be like the laws about liberty and the safety of the citizens. But, some laws should be left flexible; for example laws about property or minor laws that don't directly affect the people's liberty and natural rights. Laws will have to be changed as we as a nation progress and encounter new situations.
I think it would be fairly accurate to describe the constitution as a blueprint for governing. However, as anyone who has ever looked at an IKEA blueprint will tell you, the intentions of those who write documents are not always clear, and all blueprints require some degree of interpretation by the reader. The framers of the constitution had a great deal of foresight in leaving wording vague in order to accommodate the perpetually changing country. Values and technology in the U.S will continue to be dynamic, so it is important that the constitution remains flexible to accommodate these changes. However, it is important that core values such as freedom of speech and religion remain fixed and not be subject to manipulation.
The Constitution can hardly be considered a blueprint for governing. Rather than rules of how the government should be run, the Constitution provides a framework for the general duties of the government as well as a few concrete examples of what the government should not do, such as the liberties that are guaranteed in the Constitution (writ of habeas corpus, equal privileges and immunities, etc.). When dealing with a Constitution, it is difficult to include many fixed, concrete rules of governing, because if it is to remain legitimate over many years, such as our Constitution has, it would be ridiculous to believe that the same circumstances would surround the government hundreds of years later, and therefore the majority of a Constitution should be written with flexible terms.
I agree with the article in saying that the Constitution was written in the purpose of being a blueprint for our nation. The Framers of the Constitution created the document to be a guideline for the many generations to come. With each time period comes changes, and the Framers understood this. They created this document to be somewhat vague in order to accommodate the future generations. In contrast to that, the Framers had specific ideas of what government should and should not do. These core values included in the Constitution should remain the same, no matter what generation is following them. These values are basic human rights include (but not limited to) the right to religion and freedom of speech for example. These values will/should never change and the Framers wanted to make sure there was no room for interpretation in those specific rights.
Our Constitution is not just a blueprint for governing the country it is also a safeguard for our rights as human beings and as Americans. The vague wording in the Constitution is an obvious sign of the great foresight of its framers since they anticipated the changing state of mind the country would have in the centuries to come. The Constitution is designed to be open to interpretation as the feelings of the country have changed with the time. It is obvious that the document has stood the test of time because of its flexibility and therefore should be left largely untouched, with only the significant changes being the ammendments.
The Constitution was a document written for the purpose of creating a structured democracy that also gave rights to its citizens. It is however, loosely structured and therfore open to interpretation. I believe an inflexible constitution with room for interpretation is a constitution that accomodates to our ever-changing society. I believe that the citizens' rights should always be protected, but alterations to amendments must happen in order for this to be a reality. For example, the right to bear arms should be protected constitutionally, but the right to bear arms should also have restrictions and regulations for the safety of our citizens. The Constitution should be fixed for the purpose of a democracy, but flexible as a mere blueprint, not a complete structure, for governing. Rather, it should be open to interpretation and discussion. That way, we can accomodate to our fast-moving society, and we will also in turn create new policies and laws that will hopefully benefit the way we run our country, and benefit the citizens as well.
It is my belief that The Constitution was written in a way that can be very loosely interpreted. There is no doubt that the content in the Constitution provides an excellent framework for our government and also guarantees many liberties. In the 1700s, the Framers were only trying to lay the groundwork for a government that could last. They knew fully well that the constitution had to be left open ended to some extent to account for the various changes that would occur over time. For example, The 8th amendment protects against "cruel punishment", but the interpretation of what that means exactly is unknown and has changed dramatically over the years. Therefore, I beleive it to be in the best interests to keep the Constitution worded as is, and allow for its constant re-interpretation in our rapidly changing environment. It will always be my firm belief that the Framers wrote the Constitution in a flexible way so it could always be loosely interpreted. The bottom line will always remain that the Constitution will always protect the civil liberties for its citizens and provide an excellent framework for governing.
I believe that the Constitution is more of a sketch than a blueprint. When I think of a blueprint, I think of a set in stone plan or idea that is unable to be changed,fixed, or misinterpreted. When thinking of a sketch, I think of a general idea that gets the point across, but is able to be altered to better accomplish the task at hand. The Constitution has some loose ends and inevitably can be interpreted in many ways. Most commonly, there is loose and strict interpretation of the Constitution. This was especially evident in the 1790s with the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans (Anti-Federalists). Although a very dominant discussion in the late 1700s and early 1800s, it is still highly discussed today in political campaigns and regimes with being a liberal verse being a conservative. Because of the plethora of ways the Constitution can be interpreted it is a sketch rather than a blueprint. Although the Constitution has had its fair share of altercations, I don't think that many changes are needed. Alterations should be made as problems occur. If alterations are made first, unnecessary/ unwanted problems can occur that might not have otherwise. In general amendments that deal with freedom or personal rights should be fixed while others should be flexible in order to accommodate the ever changing country.
I think that the framers of the U.S. Constitution created the document to be long lasting. I feel that they used so many loose terms to allow the document to be open to interpretation, and allow its inherent meaning to change with this country's society. If it had been made to be completely rigid, it would have been necessary to rewrite it a long time ago to change with society. I think the reason we have one of the world's oldest constitutions is because it was made to be amended and changed along with the times. I think that all of the basic principles of the Constitution should be fixed. I do not believe that any of the basic structure of our government should ever be changed, but there are some parts of the Constitution that should be flexible. I like that the framers never explicitly defined words like "justice" and "liberty" because then it is possible for a multitude of different logical interpretations. The Constitution is framed so that many conclusions are possible. If it was worded rigidly, definitions would quickly become out-of-date, but the framers had the foresight to put in preventative measures to ensure that there would not be a need for an entirely new written Constitution any time soon.
The Constitution provides an ideal combination of flexibility and rigidity. The Framers had a lot of ground to cover in one single document and a limited amount of time to do this. Yes, they did use vague wording at times, but it sparks debate and allows for multiple different interpretations to be considered. Although it may slow some processes greatly, this divergent thinking allows for better solutions to be thought of. The Framers knew that new problems would emerge in the future and they left room for a multitude of outcomes. Had they been more specific, the ratification of the document would have been impossible as fewer groups could be satisfied. However, what they could all agree on was a set of unwavering and extremely important rules and rights that applied to both the states and the federal government, and to individuals as well. The Framers could not have anticipated what would come in the future, but what they ended up with has proven to work thus far for our country with only a handful of tweaks along the way to adapt it to the specific needs of the time.
The Constitution laid the groundwork for the US to become the country it is today. It does not explicitly state all the details that a blueprint would, which is what has allowed it to be flexible and stand the test of time. Along with contributing to how government should be run, the Constitution also tells general goals for the direction the country should go in. Those goals in the first paragraph should undoubtedly remain and govern what other parts of the Constitution could change. The Constitution was purposefully left open for interpretation, so the finer details should be flexible.
The Constitution was dreated by the Frqamers for the purpose of organizing the new government. Therefore, given its obvious significance and the time that it took to be drafted, modified, and finally presented, it is clear that no mistake was made in its foundation. Had the founders wanted for a document that listed the precise definition of all their terms and phrases (i.e. cruel adn unusual punishment) they would have done so, as the founding fathers created the list of greivances against the English Crown in the Declaration of Independence. However, clearly the Framers did not want a list. In excluding what would have been an enourmous list of precise details, the Framers ensured that the power of the Federal Government would not grow out of proportion. As it had no solid foundation to build upon, the Federal government could not strictly enforce any unjust law upon the states because the Federal government itself was only provided with a rough outline for it to base its policies. In short, the Constitution provided the basis for a stronger Federal government, while still keeping the majority of the power for the states ensuring that the new form of government would not evolve into something it had not been designed to be.
I believe the Constitution is not solely a blueprint for governing the United States. It provides a number of regulations on what government can/cannot do, but the vague nature of the document makes it very open to interpretation. With the great ability to interpret it to your liking, it does not set a firm standard of how government should be run. I believe this is a good thing though; as times change, society changes with it. Having old guidelines set in a new age society would make us unable to move forward with our standards on life and morals. Luckily, the Constitution's vague remarks make us able to analyze the Articles from a modern perspective, and interpret it in a way most fitting for our time.
16 comments:
In my opinion, the Constitution is merely a framework for how our society should be ran in order to keep the liberties of people safe and free from tyranny. In various amendments they use words and phrases that can be interpreted in many different ways and can also mean a lot of things. However, there are no clear definitions of these words from the people who wrote them. I think that the reason why they did this was because they knew that our nation would be ever changing and wanted to make sure that this Constitution would be applicable for over hundreds and hundreds of years to come. I think that our Constitution is a great example of a perfect balance of flexibility and stability. There are some laws that obviously should be fixed, like freedom of speech, but rules for electing president and vice president and who is allowed to be elected can be somewhat flexible because things may change in the future where we would need to make provisions to those rules.
The U.S. Constitution provides an excellent framework for our government, but should not be considered a full-fledged blueprint for how a government should run a nation. As times and circumstances change, the meaning of the Constitution should be just as adaptable. The basic rights, such as life and liberty, and the set-up of government should stay the same, but the wording and interpretation of the amendments should be flexible in order to accommodate certain situations. This does not mean that the Constitution should be interpreted to further the ends of groups or individuals, but rather it should be open to discussion and adjustments if old rulings are out-dated. The authors of the Constitution recognized that times would change, so they left out some specifics such as acceptable punishments. This leaves room for the people of our day to make the changes necessary in order to keep the government fair and modern.
To a very little degree do I believe that the constitution is a blueprint for governing the nation. Just like the text states, the constitution is only a framework; setting the boundaries of how the nation should be run. It is a framework to show and give the rights to the citizens keeping them away from experiencing any form of tyranny. This article mainly talks about how the framers wrote the constitution very vaguely; leaving people interpreting it in different ways. in the constitution some fixed laws should be like the laws about liberty and the safety of the citizens. But, some laws should be left flexible; for example laws about property or minor laws that don't directly affect the people's liberty and natural rights. Laws will have to be changed as we as a nation progress and encounter new situations.
I think it would be fairly accurate to describe the constitution as a blueprint for governing. However, as anyone who has ever looked at an IKEA blueprint will tell you, the intentions of those who write documents are not always clear, and all blueprints require some degree of interpretation by the reader. The framers of the constitution had a great deal of foresight in leaving wording vague in order to accommodate the perpetually changing country. Values and technology in the U.S will continue to be dynamic, so it is important that the constitution remains flexible to accommodate these changes. However, it is important that core values such as freedom of speech and religion remain fixed and not be subject to manipulation.
The Constitution can hardly be considered a blueprint for governing. Rather than rules of how the government should be run, the Constitution provides a framework for the general duties of the government as well as a few concrete examples of what the government should not do, such as the liberties that are guaranteed in the Constitution (writ of habeas corpus, equal privileges and immunities, etc.). When dealing with a Constitution, it is difficult to include many fixed, concrete rules of governing, because if it is to remain legitimate over many years, such as our Constitution has, it would be ridiculous to believe that the same circumstances would surround the government hundreds of years later, and therefore the majority of a Constitution should be written with flexible terms.
I agree with the article in saying that the Constitution was written in the purpose of being a blueprint for our nation. The Framers of the Constitution created the document to be a guideline for the many generations to come. With each time period comes changes, and the Framers understood this. They created this document to be somewhat vague in order to accommodate the future generations. In contrast to that, the Framers had specific ideas of what government should and should not do. These core values included in the Constitution should remain the same, no matter what generation is following them. These values are basic human rights include (but not limited to) the right to religion and freedom of speech for example. These values will/should never change and the Framers wanted to make sure there was no room for interpretation in those specific rights.
Our Constitution is not just a blueprint for governing the country it is also a safeguard for our rights as human beings and as Americans. The vague wording in the Constitution is an obvious sign of the great foresight of its framers since they anticipated the changing state of mind the country would have in the centuries to come. The Constitution is designed to be open to interpretation as the feelings of the country have changed with the time. It is obvious that the document has stood the test of time because of its flexibility and therefore should be left largely untouched, with only the significant changes being the ammendments.
The Constitution was a document written for the purpose of creating a structured democracy that also gave rights to its citizens. It is however, loosely structured and therfore open to interpretation. I believe an inflexible constitution with room for interpretation is a constitution that accomodates to our ever-changing society. I believe that the citizens' rights should always be protected, but alterations to amendments must happen in order for this to be a reality. For example, the right to bear arms should be protected constitutionally, but the right to bear arms should also have restrictions and regulations for the safety of our citizens. The Constitution should be fixed for the purpose of a democracy, but flexible as a mere blueprint, not a complete structure, for governing. Rather, it should be open to interpretation and discussion. That way, we can accomodate to our fast-moving society, and we will also in turn create new policies and laws that will hopefully benefit the way we run our country, and benefit the citizens as well.
It is my belief that The Constitution was written in a way that can be very loosely interpreted. There is no doubt that the content in the Constitution provides an excellent framework for our government and also guarantees many liberties. In the 1700s, the Framers were only trying to lay the groundwork for a government that could last. They knew fully well that the constitution had to be left open ended to some extent to account for the various changes that would occur over time. For example, The 8th amendment protects against "cruel punishment", but the interpretation of what that means exactly is unknown and has changed dramatically over the years. Therefore, I beleive it to be in the best interests to keep the Constitution worded as is, and allow for its constant re-interpretation in our rapidly changing environment. It will always be my firm belief that the Framers wrote the Constitution in a flexible way so it could always be loosely interpreted. The bottom line will always remain that the Constitution will always protect the civil liberties for its citizens and provide an excellent framework for governing.
I believe that the Constitution is more of a sketch than a blueprint. When I think of a blueprint, I think of a set in stone plan or idea that is unable to be changed,fixed, or misinterpreted. When thinking of a sketch, I think of a general idea that gets the point across, but is able to be altered to better accomplish the task at hand. The Constitution has some loose ends and inevitably can be interpreted in many ways. Most commonly, there is loose and strict interpretation of the Constitution. This was especially evident in the 1790s with the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans (Anti-Federalists). Although a very dominant discussion in the late 1700s and early 1800s, it is still highly discussed today in political campaigns and regimes with being a liberal verse being a conservative. Because of the plethora of ways the Constitution can be interpreted it is a sketch rather than a blueprint. Although the Constitution has had its fair share of altercations, I don't think that many changes are needed. Alterations should be made as problems occur. If alterations are made first, unnecessary/ unwanted problems can occur that might not have otherwise. In general amendments that deal with freedom or personal rights should be fixed while others should be flexible in order to accommodate the ever changing country.
I think that the framers of the U.S. Constitution created the document to be long lasting. I feel that they used so many loose terms to allow the document to be open to interpretation, and allow its inherent meaning to change with this country's society. If it had been made to be completely rigid, it would have been necessary to rewrite it a long time ago to change with society. I think the reason we have one of the world's oldest constitutions is because it was made to be amended and changed along with the times. I think that all of the basic principles of the Constitution should be fixed. I do not believe that any of the basic structure of our government should ever be changed, but there are some parts of the Constitution that should be flexible. I like that the framers never explicitly defined words like "justice" and "liberty" because then it is possible for a multitude of different logical interpretations. The Constitution is framed so that many conclusions are possible. If it was worded rigidly, definitions would quickly become out-of-date, but the framers had the foresight to put in preventative measures to ensure that there would not be a need for an entirely new written Constitution any time soon.
The Constitution provides an ideal combination of flexibility and rigidity. The Framers had a lot of ground to cover in one single document and a limited amount of time to do this. Yes, they did use vague wording at times, but it sparks debate and allows for multiple different interpretations to be considered. Although it may slow some processes greatly, this divergent thinking allows for better solutions to be thought of. The Framers knew that new problems would emerge in the future and they left room for a multitude of outcomes. Had they been more specific, the ratification of the document would have been impossible as fewer groups could be satisfied. However, what they could all agree on was a set of unwavering and extremely important rules and rights that applied to both the states and the federal government, and to individuals as well. The Framers could not have anticipated what would come in the future, but what they ended up with has proven to work thus far for our country with only a handful of tweaks along the way to adapt it to the specific needs of the time.
The Constitution laid the groundwork for the US to become the country it is today. It does not explicitly state all the details that a blueprint would, which is what has allowed it to be flexible and stand the test of time. Along with contributing to how government should be run, the Constitution also tells general goals for the direction the country should go in. Those goals in the first paragraph should undoubtedly remain and govern what other parts of the Constitution could change. The Constitution was purposefully left open for interpretation, so the finer details should be flexible.
The Constitution was dreated by the Frqamers for the purpose of organizing the new government. Therefore, given its obvious significance and the time that it took to be drafted, modified, and finally presented, it is clear that no mistake was made in its foundation. Had the founders wanted for a document that listed the precise definition of all their terms and phrases (i.e. cruel adn unusual punishment) they would have done so, as the founding fathers created the list of greivances against the English Crown in the Declaration of Independence. However, clearly the Framers did not want a list. In excluding what would have been an enourmous list of precise details, the Framers ensured that the power of the Federal Government would not grow out of proportion. As it had no solid foundation to build upon, the Federal government could not strictly enforce any unjust law upon the states because the Federal government itself was only provided with a rough outline for it to base its policies. In short, the Constitution provided the basis for a stronger Federal government, while still keeping the majority of the power for the states ensuring that the new form of government would not evolve into something it had not been designed to be.
I believe the Constitution is not solely a blueprint for governing the United States. It provides a number of regulations on what government can/cannot do, but the vague nature of the document makes it very open to interpretation. With the great ability to interpret it to your liking, it does not set a firm standard of how government should be run. I believe this is a good thing though; as times change, society changes with it. Having old guidelines set in a new age society would make us unable to move forward with our standards on life and morals. Luckily, the Constitution's vague remarks make us able to analyze the Articles from a modern perspective, and interpret it in a way most fitting for our time.
Post a Comment