1.I Believe It Is Time To Add Items To The Constitution

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects us to not be putted into cruel and unusual punishments, but when it comes to the death penalty, things become more complicated. In my personal opinion, I believe the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and that the death penalty undoubtedly violates the 8th Amendment. Looking at the case of “Furman v. Georgia (1972)”, the Court invalidated death penalty laws in the end because the justices considered the punishment of the death penalty was too cruel and unusual to the Furman’ sin, accidentally killing people, and disproportionately using the death penalty would result in more serious problems to the poor and minorities. This decision fully reflected the reliability of

Throughout the United States an argumentative topic is the death penalty - should it be legalized across the 50 states or be declared unconstitutional? Some believe the death penalty is a better option for those who deserve the highest form of punishment available. However, others argue capital punishment is a waste of resources and should be brought to an end. Therefore, while many believe the death penalty should be legalized throughout the United States because it offers a higher form of punishment, others believe the death penalty should be repealed because it causes unnecessary deaths.

The Constitution should change with society. Like all societies, ours changes with time. Like it or not, things will be different in the future. Although we agree with things we are doing now, we may not in the future. Our constitution is ment to be part of a lasting government in the land of the free. If the USA really wishes to be held up to that title, its people must be able to agree, and if needed, change the Constitution.

Capital Punishment is Not Only Unusual, But Cruel      The most widely known aspect of the eighth amendment is the fact that it prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment is perceived as punishment that causes “an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” (Bailey). Is capital punishment cruel and unusual? It is one of the most controversial topics in America today. In effect since the 1600s, the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual” in 1972 but reversed this decision when a "cleaner" way to bring about death was found in 1976 (Encarta).

Some might think that it gives Congress the power to do whatever it wants to do, but that is not so. Congress should only use this clause to create legislation directly relating to an expressed power in the Constitution. The laws should only be what is necessary and proper. If legislation does not meet either of these requirements, it is not in Congress’s power to enact it. The necessary and proper clause, though sometimes used correctly, has often been misused. One example can be found in a court case that took place in 1896 (United States v. Gettysburg Electric Rail Co.). The case decided whether Congress had the power to condemn a railroad’s land. The necessary and proper clause, wrongly used, justified that Congress had the power to condemn that land and create a park. Congress argued that this decision fell under Congress’s expressed power to raise and equip armies. This is just one example of many. When the national bank was created many people thought that this stretched the necessary and proper clause. The necessary and proper clause had been stretched many times. The clause is sometimes called the “elastic clause” because of its

That question is a debate that has been occuring for years. The supreme court has previously ruled that the dealth penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment there for it is not violating the eighth amendment in any way. Despite how the supreme court has ruled the death penalty, there is still many arguments till this day on whether or not it should fall under cruel and unusual punishment. In 1972, the case Furman V. Georgia was brought in front of the supreme court to rule whether or not they believed the dealth penality was cruel and unusual. This case almost ruled out the death penalty, but that didn't last very long. In 1976, the case Gregg V. Georgia came in front of the Supreme Court and the earlier decision was changed because a majority vote believed that the dealth penalty was not cruel and unusual. Eventually four principals were established to decided whether or not punishment was cruel and unusual. The four questions were, is it degrading to human dignity? Is it arbitary? Is it rejected throughout society? Is it unnecessary? Which many states ended up believing that the death penalty were along the lines of those four principals. Clayton Lockett might be a tragic example of the death penalty going bad. He was getting injected, but the injection didn't kill him up until an hour after it was injected. He had to sit there and suffer and many would of

The moral and ethical debate on the sentencing and enforcement of capital punishment has long baffled the citizens and governing powers of the United States. Throughout time, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and the vast majority beliefs of Americans, have been in a constant state of perplexity. Before the 1960s, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual" punishment and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Many argue that capital punishment is an absolute necessity, in order to deter crime, and to ‘make things right’ following a heinous crime of murder. Despite the belief that capital punishment may seem to be the only tangible, permanent solution to ending future capital offenses, the United States should remove this cruel and unnecessary form of punishment from our current judicial systems.

Hannah Patrick, one has only to look at some of the cases such as Coker v. Georgia to feel that the death penalty does not violate the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court says it is excessive punishment for the rape of an adult woman and that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In Coker v. Georgia, the defendant raped a woman and stabbed her to death. Eight months later he kidnapped another woman, raped her twice, and abandoned her to die after biting her severely. While he was serving multiple life terms in prison, he escaped and kidnapped, raped, and robbed a third woman at knifepoint (LeSage, 1978). I do not see how you can read about this case and decide as the U.S. Supreme Court did.

The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the Power that are implied in the constitution but it’s not explicitly stated in the Articles. This is why it’s referred to as the implied powers. The best way to explain the Necessary and Proper Clause would be in the subject debate between Secretary of the Treasury who was Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of state Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Alexander Hamilton made a big deal to have the interpretation of clause explain in details. His point was to open the doors ways to authorized Congress to exercise a more of the implied powers. While Thomas Jefferson concern was how much power the government would have in just one branch. He wanted to make sure one didn’t have more power over the other. Jefferson argued that the necessary and proper clause was a restrictive adjective. While Jefferson was fighting for States’ Rights it made Hamilton’s interpretation ended up been more favorable by George Washington and James Madison.

The United States Constitution was an important document that changed history and a flexible document that could adapt to future challenges for many reasons. This important document replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had many problems from the beginning. Over time, the Constitution has also been amended to meet the challenges in the future.

The U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, and even though it was made so long ago, it still serves as the basic framework for our country today. It has lasted with only twenty-four Amendments made to it in the past 228 years; an amazing feat in within itself, considering that the first ten were made within the first five years of having the Constitution and two others cancel themselves out. As well as the large changes made in formal Amendments, there are also small changes made that redefine these words. There are court cases that have arisen in the past and continue to rise up today that can lead to both major change and just tweaks to the rules and principles delegated by the Constitution.

"Our Constitution, signed September 17, 1787, recently had its 230th birthday. Despite the changing world, our Constitution had stood the test of time. Has it been tested? Absolutely. But our government to this day is subject to this great masterpiece of a document. But with the world changing so rapidly, in ways our Founding Fathers may have never foreseen, will this great document continue to reign supreme? How does it address modern innovations like cell-phones, cars, and the internet? That, to me, is the most special thing about our Constitution. Written over 200 years ago, it continues to address the everyday questions of our modern government. The principles which were laid out by our Founders not only managed to address age-old issues such as slavery, but now are able to address this question of monitoring the internet.

2. Define the necessary and proper clause. Why is it so important to the understanding of federalism?

The U.S. Constitution is an ageless book of wisdom written by James Madison to establish a federal government and to balance the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. But now is a new time with new problems arising. In the book, A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country by Larry Sabato, he develops 23 proposals to bring our Constitution up to date. In order for this to happen, we would have to have another Constitutional Convention. In my opinion, the United States needs to have another Constitutional Convention to make a more perfect Union by making a more perfect Constitution. “We need to apply the ageless values contained in the Preamble to the new demands of a very

We should change our constitution for the reason that the political process that we use today is inefficient and unequal. The framers of the constitution made the political process inefficient on the basis that they wanted the government to be powerful enough to protect them from another state but not so powerful that they could take their property. The constitution was set up to protect the minority being that the framers of the constitution were a part of the minority. A way in which the political process is inefficient is that the legislative branch is split up into two branches the House and the Senate. The framers of the constitution did this to give states power in the political process as a result of them being independent prior to