The Constitution Is A Mere Quixotic Theory

The First Amendment 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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress

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 to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for e redress of grievances.

“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

Our first amendment to the United States Constitution reads; 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

The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States

          ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

It has been two hundred and twenty years since the Constitution was written. In that short amount of time, we have fought several wars and made new discoveries that brought us one step closer to the future. During all of this, society’s political views have slowly shifted over the past two hundred years. From women’s suffrage to civil rights, to same gender marriage, we have adopted beliefs that would have been considered unthinkable during the era that the Founding Fathers lived in. Each of these political accomplishments would not have been possible without the process of Amendments that was put in place by the Founding Fathers. However, each of these accomplishments took several years, and even decades, to accomplish because we continue

Our founding fathers imagined a country full of freedom and opportunity. This divine objective, however, did not promise such to everyone. As our government today views the original documents made by our fathers, we come to realize that they did not specify all our questionable rights presently.

For more than 200 years, the U.S. Constitution has been used to run the government of the United States, and it is what constructed and shaped America into the country it is today. The founding fathers had established a constitution that would create a perfect union, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide defense, promote welfare, and secure the liberty of American citizens. The constitution has done exactly what the founders have intended, but with a fast-growing population and a developing society, it has begun to limit the ways of the twenty-first century government. In Larry J. Sabato’s book, A More Perfect Constitution: Why the Constitution Must Be Revised: Ideas to Inspire a New Generation, he states twenty-three proposals on how the constitution can be modified to fit the needs of today’s society in the form of a second constitutional convention. For every proposal he proposes in the book, he also describes the issues that the current constitution poses on America today. A constitutional convention is needed and with more knowledge we have today than when the constitution was first written, it could now be revised and shape America into a better nation.

"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 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The First Amendment 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

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.

“Roses are red, violets are blue, and at times, I like you.” This is a small, simple phrase at first glance. Based on an individual’s character, however, they may take it a different way. As the audience changes, so does the meaning. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the same principle remains. It is extremely difficult to interpret the U.S. Constitution, because of its complexity and fragility. Also, the fact is when time changes, people change. In other words, different generations have different interpretations of what the Constitution says that they can do. Which leads to textualism, causing the judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether they can make new laws, even though their true vocation is to interpret the laws. Textualism trials test everything. Since the Constitution was written in 1788, they figure that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, there are people who believe that the current laws of the Constitution should be interpreted the same way as the original. An example of textualism would be the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, and the original Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. So in this paper, I am comparing and contrast these judges’ arguments of textualism, to decipher which one is correct.

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

"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." (Bill of Rights)