When are constitutional amendments necessary?

| iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

Home

Blog

Statements

Video Library

Are You a Citizen?

The Idea of America

Resources
SEARCH

LOGIN

REGISTER

1 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

SEP

14
2011

When are constitutional amendments necessary?

Thomas Jefferson wrote that every generation has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness. Most of the time new laws or policies are sufficient to meet changing priorities, but when thats not the case, theres talk about amending the United States Constitution. Recent proposals include a balanced budget amendment and another that would define marriage. In the 224 years of its existence, we have amended the Constitution 27 times, which may be evidence that the framers established a high threshold for change. Citizens frustrated with government sometimes pressure Congress to use the Constitutions amendment process. Others are content to depend on the courts to measure the Constitution against social goals. Wed like to knowdo you think changes in our ethical views compel us to amend the supreme law of the land, the Constitution?
FILED UNDER: The Constitution

by Colonial

Join us as we explore current issues through the events and struggles of the past. Visit Colonial Williamsburg Connect

Williamsburg Connect 37 comments

Recent Connect Discussions

JayC commented: The bias in your last paragraph is an obvious attempt to elicit comments. Ill bite. The Espionage Act of 1917 allows government prosecution of... View Discussion

K. Ramsey commented: I disagree with the previous comment. I don't think that protesters have a "duty to break the law." I would say that protesters have "a right to... View Discussion

Explore The Constitution on Colonial Williamsburg CONNECT

Daniel Beckett commented: Protestors have the duty to break the law when that law infringes on their right to express their grievances and seek redress from those in... View Discussion

DEC

Alma commented:

12
2011

I believe that the Constitution's 1st Ammendment has given people the courage to speak openly on their ethical beliefs and views. However, this freedom does not translate into liberty and justice for all. America was founded on a set of values that accepts and encourages the freedoms we now know as our basic rights. But it was also founded on a very specific set of morals that state, while all have a right to expression, the interests of everyone must be defended and protected above all other contradictory ideas or opinions. The Constitution is the framework for this defense and should only be ammended when proven to be absolutely necessary to the proctection of the American way of life.
REPLY

Diana Ashkenasy commented: Making an assumption about Jesus Christ weakens your argument. Not everyone is a "slave" to a patriarchal entity. Nor does one need to believe... View Discussion

Carolina girl commented: i WOULD THINK THAT IT WAS DICTATED BY STATUS. HOW SAD THAT IT HAS TO BE POSED "SLAVES". NO MAN SHOULD BE A SLAVE EXCEPT TO JESUS CHRIST WHO... View Discussion

DEC

Danielle commented:

9
2011

I think that changes to the Constitution are alright. I wouldnt want to change everything, but I would really like to see equal rights to marriage for all.
REPLY

NOV

Kasey commented:

1
2011

I think that we should be able to change the way the constitution because we are moving way farther along than the framers of the constitution ever thought we would. We need to make changes to the constitution to go along with the way society is now
REPLY

OCT

2 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

30
2011

Jordan commented:

Amendments are necessary to keep policies fresh with our forever changing times.
REPLY Anonymous commented:

OCT

25
2011

I think we should be able to amend the constitution. It was written along time ago and times have extremely changed.
REPLY

OCT

Anonymous commented:

26
2011

I the constitution can be amended. Not easily, which is wise. But it can be amended. Whims and current political fashions are deterred from effecting the future of the country by making it a process of deliberation not quick and easy.
REPLY

OCT

Anonymous commented:

25
2011

The framers made it difficult to make changes to the Constitution for a reason. We cannot just make changes based on the flavor of the day/month/year. The way the Constitution is framed it is represents all the people. Views on defining marriage are not the same for everyone therefore, we should leave that up to the Supreme Court to decide. That is why the Judicial branch was set up by the framers because they knew issues would arise. Hell, they had their own issue with slavery when they were framing the Constitution but you didn't see them force their views, at the time, on all Americans. That is the point of the Constitution. As far as balancing the budget goes, this should be handled through the Legislative branch of government. We the People have the power together to make our Legislators do what is right for all the people, but in order to expect them to put aside their petty one sided bickering, we have to do the same thing. That is the problem, there is not sense of togetherness, everyone thinks that they should be able to force someone else to live by their values/rules and that is not what America was founded on.
REPLY

OCT

Jordan commented:

30
2011

Agreed, there are two many people with different agendas to make amendments whenever we feel like it. It should be a tough thought out process.
REPLY

OCT

Anthony Miller commented:

23
2011

I believe amendments are necessary when as a nation, we change course on beliefs. After all, isn't the constitution reflective of our beliefs as a whole? The caveat is that it must be our beliefs as a nation. The framers knew that beliefs would change and that only the important would make it, so they created a system that requires amount of approval that only the strongest and longest term shifts in belief would be allowed in. For instance, the 27th took over 200 years to make it in.
REPLY

OCT

3 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

30
2011

Jordan commented:

Beliefs do change along with standards. Our country is forever changing. In return new amendments to the constitution are necessary.
REPLY TJ commented:

OCT

3
2011

Amendment 9-" The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or discharge others retained by the people." From my interpretation, one is issued freedom of speech to an extent. If you wear something very inappropriate, a police officer could use judgement to stop you. If you use a racial slur to another individual it would be considered a hate crime. Everything we do has a hidden clause and my perception is focused on what "other laws" we actually retain... Where do we draw the line from right or wrong... Draw the line of what is appropriate or what is "unlawful?"
REPLY

OCT

Karen commented:

3
2011

I definitely agree that changes in our ethical views do compel us to amend the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. The founding fathers did in fact create the Constitution including many issues that still exist in today's society. However, with the world constantly changing our government needs to adapt policies and laws through amending the Constitution. America was different 300 years ago, facing different problems than the problems and issues we are facing in today's world. Changing the Constitution is an extremely difficult and complex task. However, I do feel the Constitution should be amended especially in regards to a balanced budget and also defining marriage.
REPLY

SEP

Michelle commented:

30
2011

I believe amendments to the constitution are vital. Without them, I dont think our constitution would be anywhere near as strong as it is today. With the changes made to the constitution, it allows our government to adapt and change as people do. We were not the same American public as we were 300 years ago and we face many different problems than we did back then. This shows that making changes to the constitution is a must when dealing with todays constantly changing government. That being said, changing the constitution is not an easy task, and it shouldnt be. We have a great foundation and when a time comes that things need to be altered, amendments are an option, but it is a difficult process.
REPLY

SEP

luke commented:

29
2011

It was genius how the founding fathers were able to come up with the idea of amending the constitution. There would have been no way that all the policies/laws/ideas would be able to last into the coming centuries, as opinions and ideas toward certain issues were changing too rapidly. It was also very impressive that they were able to address a lot of issues that still affect people nowadays. A lot of the original policies are still intact. Who would have thought that the constitution would have lasted this long? I'm sure none of the founding fathers could have guessed it.
REPLY

4 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

27
2011

Anonymous commented:

I believe that as the world changes, the Constitution must change to. Obviously the framers couldn't predict what the world of today would be like, ergo they couldn't predict all the problems we would face. That being said, some things are left best to court rulings such as Roe vs. Wade. Although i may personally be pro-choice, i would rather not see the words "we Americans support the medical process of sucking out baby brains" or something like that, written on our most prized document, the Constitution.
REPLY luke commented:

SEP

29
2011

I agree. No matter how perfect the constitution may have been originally written, there was no chance that it would always be perfect. Things are constantly changing, and it would have been impossible to write something 300 years ago that was still in use today as it was then.
REPLY

OCT

Karen commented:

4
2011

I agree with your comments Luke. Actually the Constitution was written extremely well 300 years ago. However, like you stated no matter how perfect the Constitution was written back at that time, there was no chance it would always be perfect. Things are always changing and that is why it is so important that the Constitution can always be amended for these changes.
REPLY

SEP

reem khawatmy commented:

30
2011

i agree, the founding fathers were human, ( great ones), but it is impossible for them to know what life is going to be after 300 years, so new generation should follow the way they create the constitution, more than following what it says exactly.
REPLY

SEP

Michelle commented:

30
2011

I completely agree with this statement. Obviously the founding fathers could not know of the problems we would later face. That is why having the power to make ammedments and changes to the constitution is such a great thing.
REPLY

SEP

Anonymous commented:

27
2011

I somewhat agree that Law is divorced from ethics, but not completely. If the officer did not pull you over, you could have hurt someone in an accident, and that is much worse than your child being late for school. His ethics were correct because those are the ethics of his job and the law. He put the safety of a human being before your child being late for school, which is not that big of a deal when comparing to a human life. He was protecting the citizens by applying ethics to law.
REPLY

SEP

Anonymous commented:

27

I believe Amendments to the constitution are necessary. I am not

5 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

2011

saying it should be amended every year, that would be a complete mess, but every 20-40 years would be acceptable. People change through-out time. If we look back at the 18th century, many things were different, peoples beliefs and what was expected from a society as a "norm" was quite different from todays. As new generations grow, norms will change, as well as people's beliefs and what is acceptable in the society. Lets take for example: Same-sex marriages. In 20 years it is very probable that the number of same-sex marriages will increas, and will become a "norm" in our society, and i believe it would be every same-sex couple's right to have the right to get married, just as we all have the freedom of speech. Why should they be discriminated against? Okay, I am not saying that this particular issue HAS to be added to the constitution, maybe it would just be better off if it goes to court, but many things will change through-out time and my point is that the Constitution will have to be amended though-out life. With time comes change and change only. Many things will not be the same in 20-40 years, so change and correction will be necessary.

3
2011

REPLY Anonymous commented:

I agree. It should be amended because things do change.

REPLY
SEP

Swashbuckler commented:

27
2011

I completely 100% agree!

REPLY

SEP

Anonymous commented:

25
2011

I believe that constitution should be based on ethical views of people. Since, ethical views have tendency to change due to time, constitution should change accordantly too. The American ethical views have been changing for the past decades, and it is clear that constitutional amendment is necessary today. Definition of the marriage is one good example. As we see today, some states already approved same gender marriage. Sooner or later, it will become national and changes of constitution will be needed
REPLY

SEP

Anonymous commented:

25
2011

"Recent proposals include a balanced budget amendment and another that would define marriage." Ammendments to the constitution should never be taken lightly. They should not be made on a whim, or in response to a current trend in popular culture. I believe that the examples of proposed ammendments above - the balanced budget and the definition of mariage- like most issuse, are better handeled in the courts than spelled out in the constitution.
REPLY

SEP

Anonymous commented:

25
2011

I believe that amendments are necessary mainly when new scenarios arise that do not have a previous defined set of laws that help protect our freedoms. For instance, with the rapidly changing technology industry, there should be some involvement from our government to help make sure our bill of rights and other freedoms are preserved as well as protecting industry from becoming monopolized.
REPLY

6 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

27
2011

Swashbuckler commented:

I completely agree that we need to take charge against monopolizing the technology industry. It worries me when companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft have such a stronghold on the market.
REPLY Anonymous commented:

SEP

26
2011

I agree with you that the amendments are neccessary when there are changes that were not defined anywhere yet. In todays world withoutnew amendmets some people would not behave ethically or as the law says. the government should make sure to protect the people and the freedom of theirs by making amendments to the Constitution when there is something new and undefined.
REPLY

OCT

Karen commented:

4
2011

I agree with your comments that the amendments are necessary when there are changes that were not defined anywhere yet in the Constitution. I also agree with your comment regarding new amendments keeping people in check and forcing peolple to behave ethically or as the law says.Through amending the Constitution when there is something new and undefined, the governement protects the people and their freedoms,
REPLY

SEP

Gary commented:

19
2011

Perhaps this is why we have the stuggle between law and ethics? The law is "must do" and "will not, " yet we interpret how far that bar slides and when it slides. The police officer in the above scene gives the ticket. But if the reason for speeding is that "my house is on fire" or "my daughter was hit by a car and I'm rushing to the hospital," then the officer may forego the punishment of the law. It happens and it's the officer's choice. He's applying his ethics to the law. It's that evaluation of the situation that allows a moral code to be applied, and sometimes a lesser moral code. When the founders decided not to address the unethical practice of slavery in favor of the need of establishing a complete union, this codified that slaves were indeed property. To them, it was a greater good to establish a unity of country, than to free a people. However, they knew that a future generation would free the people and without addressing slavery allowed that debate to happen at a time when ethical choices on the issue may be favorable to freedom. That was a choice they made. Is that a divorce?
REPLY

SEP

Anonymous commented:

14
2011

Amendments to the federal Constitution are always dangerous, and almost never necessary. Too often, one fringe group or another saddles up its hobby horse and, to promote its peculiar cause or transitory point of view, advocates changing the nation's fundamental law to gain narrow and generally supercilious ends. The current example is the drive to amend the Constitution to abolish the 17th Amendment. Adoption of even such worthwhile amendments as the 13th, 14th, and 15th, almost always have unintended consequences. Their "due process" and "equal protection" clauses led to a vast expansion of federal power.

7 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

It's best to allow the courts to develop the law; the "wingers," no matter how sincere and well meaning, seldom have the training or the intelligence for the job. A note in closing: as every first-year law student learns, ethics is divorced from the law. The notion that the law is somehow intended to codify ethics betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of our system of justice.
REPLY Anonymous commented:

25
2011

Almost never necessary? So the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is not necessary? We would be in a society without guns and while it seems good at first, it would mean no hunting or even means of providing food for some families. You saying that the amending process is dangerous and almost never necessary makes me conclude that you would like the whole process to be thrown out or completely revised. But without amendments, we would be stuck with one Constitution that was designed for life in the late 18th century. The United States of America would have failed as a country by the Civil War and, most likely, life as we know it today would not be the same.
REPLY
SEP

Anonymous commented:

25
2011

I almost find your post insulting, in the fact that you believe citizens who are not properly trained in the law should not be decision makers for our country. I think sometimes it's necessary for our nation to think outside the box in order for us to be able to stay in touch with every walk of life in our nation. Even though some of us are not "trained or have the intelligence", we are still citizens of this country, and should be treated as such.
REPLY

SEP

Groovy commented:

16
2011

While the Constitution, our law of the land, isn't math, when interpreted and applied at its most just for all citizens, is art, the highest form of math. Isn't much of what we create, whether material or conceptual, based on some form of ethical code? Why do the interpreters of the law believe that there isn't an ethical component to justice? I think much of what is written in it and the amendments is based on ethics of the times. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." This wording implies that Congress will be tempted to take action that is in opposition to what the Founders just fought against. So they wrote the ethical code for the law and wagged a finger at future Congresses to resist such urges or it could get ugly in Texas. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior..." Good behavior? Not exactly multiplication tables, no matter what century you're in. How is ethics divorced from the Constitution? Or why is ethics divorced from the law?
REPLY

8 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

OCT

TJ commented:

3
2011

For decades people have been focused on standards that help control and mandate our government. Regulations, policies and laws are enforced to what we hold true as a democracy.. although many are thought upon as unfair, unjust and unethical. I agree that a exorbitant amount of the Constitution is based upon ethics of that era.. however the courts try to reword what they feel just; many times it is found difficult to sculpt the ideals of "fairness" and "ethics," upon each case.
REPLY

SEP

L.M. commented:

19
2011

"Why do the interpreters of the law believe that there isn't an ethical component to justice?" The Constitution is a legal document --the "must do" and "will not" legal issues of the country. Ethics is a choice. It's the individual conscience that we're born with and can't be mandated. I may "choose" to run a red light because I'm late dropping my child off at school, but the police officer follows " the law" and tickets me because he can't weigh the importance of a child's education vs. the safety of the driving public.He has to write me a ticket. The law IS divorced from ethics. Otherwise, WHO decides how to ethically interpret the law? That's a nightmare waiting to happen.
REPLY

SEP

Anonymous commented:

25
2011

I can't agree more with you that the Ethics of law interpretation is a nightmare waiting to happen. This puts a lot of room for errors in the decision makers hands, in your example the police officer. Yes he's trying to do his job and follow the law, on the other hand, there is usually no balance between his ethical belief and yours. That's the scarey part.
REPLY

Post new comment

Your name:
Anonymous

E-mail:

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage:

Subject:

Comment: *

9 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23

When are constitutional amendments necessary? | iCitizenForum

http://icitizenforum.com/constitution/when-are-constitutional-amendmen...

Terms of Use

Rules of Engagement

Privacy Policy

About

Contact

RSS

2012 iCitizenForum

10 of 10

27-04-2012 15:23