The Strengths of the US Constitution Now Outweigh Its Weaknesses

‘The strengths of the US Constitution now outweigh its weaknesses.’ Discuss TARGET; LINK TO THE QUESTION The question whether the constitution is still strong or should be update is very topical in the modern era, there are many weaknesses and strengths about the constitution. I believe that the constitution as its weaknesses but in comparison the strengths still carry out stronger and effectively. One strength of the US Constitution is that the bill of rights is still protected, therefore protecting the rights and liberties of Americans. The founding fathers wanted to ensure the rights of the people, without a too powerful central government so the bill of rights were made to protect individual citizens from government intrusion such as the free exercise of religion, which is still protected today. In the recent 50 years, the civil and political rights and liberties have become more entrenched, for example, civil and voting rights of minority groups, gender equality and the protection of gay rights. For example, the citizens united act also meant the government could not cap money spending on FECA as it was unconstitutional because the people and organizations should have the freedom of expression in how much they spend independently on campaigns of a candidate they support or do not support. This still protects the rights of the people with freedom of expression and speech. In 2015, same – sex marriage was ruled constitutional for all states, which protects the peoples right with whom they wish to marry and doesn’t restrict the people on this issue, giving them much more freedom. It also shows that the bill of rights protects the rights of people even whilst time is moving – showing even now the rights and civil liberties are still protected. This is important as the intention of the founding fathers, by ensuring rights and civil liberties are still protected by the use of the bill of rights. However, the bill of rights can be vague and allows for confusion and mis-interpretation. For example, the wording of the 2nd amendment ‘the right to bear arms’, is unclear. Did the framers mean the American citizens have a collective right to own guns in the state militias or did they mean individual rights to own guns? The US Constitution was written 200 years ago so is not written with our modern era point of view therefore makes it hard to relate the bill of rights to the present and also due to the entrenchment of the constitution, with a super majority amendment process, it makes it much harder to add or change and rights in the constitution, to move on with the generations and society. One of the most controversial amendments is the right to bear arms. If this was not written in the constitution as a civil right, there perhaps may be much less mass shootings in the USA, causing devastation throughout the country. However, the mentality that the US Citizens have the rights to bear arms, to some for defence, has been passed down for generations, making it harder to change as in the present majority of the people would argue against the amendment of the second amendment as it is a constitutional right and secondly the need for a super majority across the states and Congress, makes it nearly impossible to amend. This shows a weakness of the US Constitution as bills are difficult to change, that may have fit in the society of when the constitution was written but now may not be appropriate in the present day. The bill of rights strength I believe has more significant strengths than weaknesses as the bill of rights still continue to protect the individual rights of people. Even though the second amendment is controversial, it still protects the individual rights to bear arms, and as it is difficult for the federal government to change, it shows that the intention of the founding fathers in protecting the rights of citizens from the central government is still carried out. Civil rights still protect the rights of people in the present day which proves it is still a strength now. A weakness of the US Constitution is that the formal amendment process is extremely difficult. This is because it requires a super majority firstly in Congress. Firstly, the amendment process requires 2/3 of both houses in congress to accept the proposal, evidence showing this is rare, is that only 40 amendments out of 5000 suggested amendments have passed through Congress and submitted to the states. The reason for this difficulty is that the US is a large nation, with many different of ideologies, so beliefs on certain amendments may vary different with each other, and would be unlikely all politicians will agree. When this is passed through to the states, it then requires ¾ of state legislatures to agree to pass the amendments, which is also very difficult as to get ¾ of the states to agree is also difficult as it is rare to get most states compromising on the same issue. Out of all 40 amendments passed to the state legislatures only 17 have been agreed on after the 10 bill of rights, showing it is rare a super majority happens in bot congress and within the states, for the different ideology reason, making it difficult to amend the constitution. This is now a current weakness as out of date bills can be very difficult to amend, preventing new or amended bills to be passed that relate to the current day and generation and keeping bills that are controversial, undemocratic or does not fit the US system However, the constitution can be vague, so when amendments are proposed it may not be mentioned in the constitution or doesn’t give full details. Due to the vagueness of the constitution, the supreme court can interpret what is ‘constitutional’ and what is ‘unconstitutional’, which can informally amend the constitution. For example, in the case of Roe vs Wade case, the supreme court interpreted that constitution gives the freedom of abortion, even though it does not specifically mention the constitution. Due to this interpretation, it allows the Supreme Court to effectively add to or amend the constitution by declaring abortion is allowed without any formal written down changes into the constitution, not requiring an absolute majority. It is shown again when they tweak the constitution in 1989, when the Supreme Court gave the states the right to impose restrictions on abortion, showing continual change and amendments to constitution, making it easy to informally amend the constitution. This is a strength of the US constitution as it allows for informal amendments to still be passed, allowing the US System to move with time and generation and addresses what is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. It also does not necessarily mean the constitution is impossible to change, the evidence that 27 amendments have been made with the need for a super majority shows it is possible and is much fairer and democratic as a majority of views are required to make sure that there is representation throughout the nation and that this ensures the amendment is necessary. Overall, even though it is much harder to amend the constitution formally, the vagueness of the constitution can also allow for constant informal amendments and tweaks within these amendments. It is also a much easier process than the need for a super majority in changing the constitution, allowing for changes throughout time. It is also still possible to amend with a confirmation that majority of the people are represented, making it democratic and also ensures that the concept of not having a central power that is constantly formally changing the constitution, is still in practice. The US Constitution also allows for federalism, which prevents a too powerful federal government. Federalism allow for power to be given to the states, preventing tyranny from the government and also a greater representation of individual state needs and beliefs. It also balances the power from the federal government and the state governments, allowing state governments to choose their own legislation on certain matters such as education. The 10th amendment allows states to take control of what is not written in the constitution. In 1989, the supreme court allowed for the states rights to impose on restrictions of abortion as it was not specifically mentioned in the constitution, which gave the states much more freedom on choosing what is right for the state. In recent years the use of new federalism has allowed for an attempt to reverse the trend of a dominant federal government. The unfunded mandates act was an effort to limit the number of unfunded federal mandates imposed by the federal government on state and local governments, which allows states to spend their own state money on what they wish rather than to spend it on what the federal government wishes. This means there is less involvement in states than before, with the previous use of unfunded mandates. This shows that there is a movement away from federal power in recent years, with the concept of new federalism, which is a strength as it is much more democratic and also means that it is following what the founding fathers believed, wanting the rights of the state on state matters. It also follows their belief in not wanting an over powerful central government and enhancing the separation of powers between the states and the central government. However, federalism is sometimes not carried out well by government, and the concept written in the US Constitution is vague as it can be unclear when federal power is too much or too little. For example, through the presidency of Bush Junior, there was a lot of federal power and interference with federal funding and aid due to consequences of 9/11, the economic recession and Hurricane Katrina. With Bush Senior, Americas worst riot and a hurricane in Miami, led to the federal government providing emergency aid. This shows that under some presidencies, the concept of federalism is eroded and that federal power increases, which shows that as a weakness, there are no official barriers to prevent the use of too much federal power and due to vagueness of what is enough government interference in the constitution, it can be interpreted differently, causing the meaning and principle of federalism to change in recent years. Federalism is a strength of the US Constitution as it allows for a separation of powers between the state governments and the federal government, which follows the intention of the founding fathers. It is also democratic as it enhances greater representation. However more recently, the concept of federalism is eroding due to consequences such as natural disasters, and the use of federal power is sometimes very necessary as the states need help and cannot always rely on themselves. The nation as a whole sometimes view on a particular belief in a similar way, which then requires state intervention, such as the influence on same – sex marriage – so many states were agreeing on it, so it was declared on a national level constitutional. Federalism may be democratic, but in the present day, federal power sometimes needs to be taken over in given circumstances and consequences as some states cannot deal with certain issues alone, showing that federalism is becoming weaker than stronger. On another hand, some parts of the constitution can be seen as undemocratic. Firstly, the constitutional requirements to run for presidency is that they must be of natural-born citizenship in the US and also must be of the age 35. This limit’s the amount of participation in the run for presidency and is unfair to those who have been living in the US, for most of their life, but not a natural-born citizen, but also may be very well educated and enthusiastic in politics. There are also weaknesses with the electoral college, being undemocratic, for example in the 2016 general election, Trump won by 304-227 in the electoral college despite polling almost 3 million popular votes less than Clinton. This shows that the popular vote of individual votes from the American electorate does not always reflect the outcome of the election, with a represented president of the people, but can lead to a president with no popular mandate. This is a weakness of the US Constitution as the electoral process of constitutional requirements can be unfair and undemocratic as it limits on who should run for the presidency even if they have the right knowledge and experience. The electoral college is a weakness, as it can lead to disproportionate votes and an unrepresented country with a president with no popular vote. However, the US can allow for checks and balances between the separate institutions. Checks and balances prevents one house including the executive being too powerful. The system of checks and balances was designed to keep one branch of the government from getting too much power. If one branch has more power than the other groups, the other either help to decrease the powers of that group, or build themselves up so they are on the same level. For example, congress has a significant power, referred as ‘the power of the purse’. All the money that the president wants to spend on his policies must be voted for by Congress, in 2007, the democrat controlled congress’s attempt to limit President George. W. Bush’s spending on military operation in Iran. This is important now as that this prevents a too powerful president and executive and leads to a more compromised decision making between all elected individuals for fair decision making and allows for representation of the people amongst the senators and house of representatives. Overall, I conclude that currently there may be weaknesses such as controversial bills like the second amendment which does not fit the current generation but the constitutional still proves to work and overall the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. As time goes on, the constitution still protects the individual rights of the US Citizens from the bill of rights, with many amendments being striked down in the past just to protect civil liberties. Federalism still proves to work even though the concept of federalism has changed due to certain consequences. This is a strength outweighing the weakness of the concept of federalism eroding as it allows for federal power when it is necessary and needed in emergencies and when states need it most. Even though the amendment process may be entrenched and difficult to change, this is an advantage as it protects the constitution from being constantly changed by a too powerful government or executive. The vagueness also compromises the need to still have indirect amendments to constitution, allowing for changes to be made overtime. In the current day the US Constitution still strong, as it still is working and safeguarding the rights of the people, indirectly changing with time and issues but still protecting the core constitutional principles of how the American political system works.