Is the US Constitution Still Able to Deal with Contemporary Problems?

Contrary to, surprisingly, popular belief that the United States Constitution is outdated, it is, in fact, still relevant in today’s society on the basis of The Bill of Rights, checks and balances, and the Elastic Clause in the

People believed that “the right to bear arms is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanction of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. On the opposite hand, many states at the time believed that to give the people the right to own a gun was unconstitutional because it could be a threat for the state government when everyone was allowed to own guns. Majority of states in America did not want to add the right to bear arms into their state constitution, because there was not a single legal model emerged on how to protect them in the first constitutions drafted by our Founding Fathers. The debate between gun control and non-gun control over the right to bear arms alarmed America. The gun control claimed that the right to bear arms is the basic right that people should have in order for American citizens to defense themselves and for their state.; They believed that the laws prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms only work for the benefit of criminals. On the opposite hand, anti-gun controllers believed that those gun owners should be led by gentlemen of the first fortune and character, because the society without the guidance of gentlemen, those gun controllers’ population might easily become a mob and not a well-regulated militia. After reviewing many opinions from both sides as well as the benefits and effectiveness of the rights, the convention agreed and

Many elements of the constitution remain unchanged. Due to the nature of the US constitution being codified, it has required a two thirds majority in Congress to change anything and this has meant that it hasn’t been greatly changed since the time it was made. The Bill of rights had remained pretty much the same since its creation. The right to bear arms, for example, is still a part of the conversation and despite many people wishing to amend it, this has not been able to happen. This proves the ridgity that the Founding Fathers wanted to give the Constitution.

The first way that the Constitution helped with the weaknesses of the United States were the different ways it made passing laws more fair. When amending a document the Articles of Confederation needed 13 out of 13 people to approve of the document. The Constitution provided a more reasonable way by having ⅔ of both houses and ¾ of the state legislature. This is a better method because not 100% of people are going to agree on everything. The same type of thing worked when passing laws. 9/13 people needed to approve in the Articles of Confederation while it’s now 50% +1 of both houses plus the signature of the President. This allows for things to be more fair and it makes sure everyone in power somewhat agrees on what is going on and not just a couple of people are deciding on what the citizens new laws will be.

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to a complete stranger who is in your house, threatening to harm you, and your family, and you cannot do anything about it. Imagine, not being able to go target shooting or hunting, because there are laws passed to prevent you from owning a firearm. The truth is, more and more people in this country are trying to restrict law-abiding people from owning firearms due to the overwhelming rise in gun related crimes. As law abiding citizens, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Whether it is for recreation or protection,

As a constitutional researcher, I’ve been assigned to take a closer look at the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Constitution reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the societies of a free state, the right of people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Specifically, I am reviewing the portion of the amendment that speaks to the right to bear arms. I believe there are several constitutional issues with this part of the amendment that may not apply to today’s world.

The right to bear arms is a birth given right to all Americans by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment has become controversial recently due to the technological advancement of firearms. Modern firearms are capable of both high rates of fire and greater capacities of ammunition, unlike the single shot muskets that were available at the time of the Second Amendment’s conception. American liberals view these improvements in firearms as dangerous and unnecessary. However, no matter how dangerous firearms may be, the Second Amendment is a necessity for one factor alone: protection from one’s own government and it must be upheld. The Second Amendment provides a physical tool for Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it allows Americans to form militias against a tyrannical government, and it allows Americans to maintain comparable firearms of the U.S. government in order to prevent the potential loss of American freedoms in the future.

The framers of our Constitution knew that time has a way of changing countries and their citizens. Our country was in a whirlwind of change in 1789 as people were experiencing freedom from the tyranny of England for the first time in their lives. Our country was being molded and formed into a great nation by the founding fathers. Expectations and rules had to be set to protect the rights of the minorities and majorities. Amendments to the Constitution were written to ensure equality for all in changing times.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.

This theory was also carried over into the legislative branch, where the public opinion was foregone in favor of elected and appointed lawmakers (recall that the early Senators were appointed by their respective state’s legislature). Another was the militant nature of their world. Still entrenched in the difficult life of the pioneer era, the Revolution was a sign of a wonderful future but a still exceedingly difficult present, and ensuring the protection of our newborn nation was a huge priority. Though that appears similar to the present-day psychology of a nation at war with terrorists, it is the monumental difference between knowing who was enemy and friend then, and believing anyone can be an enemy today. It is clear that the Framers lived in a completely different world than the modern-day American, but that in and of itself does not prove the obsolescence of the Constitution. The Constitution was inherently designed to last forever. The original Bill of Rights specified freedoms and liberties in a vagueness that, ideally, created a clear-cut definition of any ideological dispute but also left room for evolution. But, were they successful? Is the Constitution a truly timeless document? For the purposes of this particular debate, we will focus on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution; these three

According to The Second Amendment of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States have the right to own and bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia for the security of the states. This right has been discussed for decades as an important issue for the American society, and it has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century until nowadays. This right germinated with the threat to freedom that the standing army of professional soldiers brought to the Americans. Some argued that the right to bear arms is mainly concerned with self-defense while others argued that this right was implemented to avoid militia disarmament and protect the Free State. This right was

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions

For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted

Unitarily speaking, the political discourse that is associated with the United States Constitution is unsettling. The line drawn amongst what can be considered a right seems to fluctuate between obscurity and clarity. Although the fluctuation comes at a period of convenience, it is at whose expense that fluctuation comes, ought to be question. The United States Constitution and the term “rights” are politically, socially, and permanently engaged. Out of the political discourse of assessing what constitute as a right, is the question of how outdated is the United States Constitution as it pertains to present day America? We are cautioned, “A country that keeps changing its Constitution, is a sign of instability and indicates that no

The Constitution states that it is our right to bear arms to protect ourselves and that those rights cannot be infringed upon, but what happens when the arms that we use to protect ourselves also pose a threat to our lives? In America, gun violence is a constant threat and little is being done to oppose it. Although the Constitution does state that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon, the lack of restrictions on who can own firearms poses a safety threat to the public by letting dangerous individuals obtain weapons.