Burlington
High
School
Burlington,
Kansas
Teacher:
Devra
Parker
The
Controversial
Constitution
By
Sven
Salberg
12th
grade
The massing power of those who rule over us is derived from one document, and that document is being misconstrued and misused. That is to say, to a point we the people of this great country are being governed under some false pretenses. As the government moves forward toward the future it must change with the times. The Constitution allows us to do that because it is in part a living document, but we have overstepped our boundaries and made our government [too] powerful. The Constitution was not meant to give the government every power except those forbidden to them, but it was meant to evolve to fit the needs of the common person in the present and future.
I also think that not all of what the government does is constitutional. I do not think that that the original plan for our country was to spend more money daily than what we as Americans make. This great nation was not meant to throw so much money at all the citizens’ problems, worries, and desires. In the country today there are generations of people who live solely off the donations of others, and if there were no programs set up to, quote unquote, help these people, they might have made their lives meaningful. These people could have been a help to our society instead of a leach off tax payers.
The reason I believe it's not right to throw the people of this country that are lacking intelligence or can't function properly into federal caretaking is it’s not the government's fault people are that way, so why should it only be the Government’s responsibility.
There are some things that the Founding Fathers could have done in their time that we are doing now. For example, when the Constitution state that there should be a separation of church and state, if they had wanted no religion involved with any function to do with the government or government run programs then they would have done it then. If people look back to their time we can see what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote this, but that fact as itself does not show that the entire Constitution was meant for only what is written because it must be able to withstand the tests of time.
The Constitution was meant to be a living document. The framers knew that times change and the government must change with it or be left behind. [They were the ones] who said if the government can't serve its people then it needs to be fixed or thrown out. Knowing this, they had to have planned for this singular document to be able to fit an evolving world. They left the wording open so that it would fit us today, as well as then. It allowed for changes in the writing itself through amendments, so why wouldn't they allow for interpretation based upon the times and what is needed. The Fathers of the Constitution knew that new technology is always on the horizon because all they could look into the past and think about years before when there were no guns, cannons, or even ship worthy of intercontinental travel. Because of this, it would only make sense to make the Constitution able to deal with new technologies and they did, by making a living Constitution with limitations.
I strongly disagree that we need to remove all programs and functions that the government carries out except those specifically listed. Not all of what goes on is a bad idea. For example, it’s not bad that we send relief to those areas stricken with disaster, or have the government fund schools or insure a person’s money that is being held in the bank. These are all helpful and reasonable functions that are being carried out today and should continue to done by in the future.
I also think that no Government at all would be much worse for the country then ours now because it is based off a living document. Without a ruling body the country would erupt into chaos and would destroy everything, people would riot, no one would enforce laws, more people would die every day and communication with the outside world would cease. That is why we need a government that can fit us today, so we don't dissent into chaos and destroy ourselves.
I believe the Constitution wasn't meant to make government all powerful but it was meant to change to fit the needs of the everyday person. The Constitution is like a cleated shoe: it was meant to dig in and grip the future. But, if it digs too deep, it will not work. It will be destroyed by the people. If the spikes are too long, they will get stuck and do the opposite of their intended purpose, or they will be torn apart by the runner. … if we wish to continue to have a functioning ruling body then we must set limits on ourselves or be ripped from our current lifestyle.
Questions
Based
on
the
Required
Reading
and
Your
Personal
Internet
Research
Q1- Explain what Roger Pilon means when he speaks of a bifurcated Bill of Rights. Describe what happened in 1938, according to his testimony.
In referring to the bifurcated Bill of Rights is saying that the bill of right was split into two parts. The first being the right like speech or voting which are classified as fundamental, and then there are non-fundamental rights such as those to do with commercial transactions. In 1938 the court rewrote parts of the constitution. The second of which was of the rewriting of the general welfare clause.
Q2- Give three examples of what is described in the testimony as fundamental rights and three examples of nonfundamental rights. Which of these rights do you, after reading portions of Dr. Pilon's testimony, believe should be subjected to strict scrutiny?
Fundamental rights include speech, voting, and press, while non-fundamental rights would be those like property, contract, and business.
Q3- Define:
Enumerated powers- This concept states that legislature can only express the powers mentioned in the Constitution.
Living constitution- There are many definitions of a living constitution, but can refer to the ability of the constitution to change and evolve through the amendment process.
Politicizing the constitution- Is making a controversial issue out of the constitution.
Q4- Why does Roger Pilon claim a living constitution is worse than no constitution at all?
Roger Pilon believed that a living constitution made the constitution look fine from the outside, but allow the political forces that the constitution is supposed to restrain come forward in full force. He believed that because of this people will come to respect law less and less.
Q5- Explain what is meant by moral legitimacy, political legitimacy and legal legitimacy. Give your own example of each.
Legitimacy on all counts is being completely honest. Political legitimacy deals with political truth-telling and doing what is right. Moral legitimacy keeps your standards and morals set on an honest path. Legal legitimacy means sticking to the truth through a legal standpoint.
Q6- Dr. Pilon spends some time enumerating five implications of an illegitimate constitution. Name the five implications and state why one seems to be the most serious in your personal opinion.
The first and most important of the five implications is the loss of legitimacy. It is the most important because in turn we have the ability to make our government have unlimited power if we continue on our current path even though the constitution was set up to have a limited government. The second attack on the constitutions legitimacy is the confusion in law; how laws can be unconstitutional in themselves and how the courts must decide upon this and whether it infringes upon peoples rights. Not only those two but also the disrespect for the constitution and the law created under it, and because the legislature can create laws that encroach upon peoples right the rule of law itself is at risk. The fourth is the implication of the loss of integrity in the constitution and the discipline that comes form that to impose on the government. Finally, there are the economic implication and how our government can mess with the economy and how we need to protect it.
Q7- When he says "those true to its conception as a means of founding, maintaining and promoting a great nation in the public good.", is Mr. Frankfurter talking about the wisdom of enumerated powers or the constitution's preordained destiny as a living document?
I think that Mr. Frankfurter is describing the constitution's ability to stay current and a living document. He says that “Lawyers' cries of unconstitutionality are nothing to be alarmed about,” because the constitution is a living document and has always been argued since its' creation.
Q8- Do you agree, with Felix Frankfurter, that the Founding Fathers refused to write limitations and qualifications into the U.S. Constitution?
I agree with Mr. Frankfurter, because the framers of the constitution left out certain limitations and qualifications for the future, and without this lack of limitations laws would be restricted today to what they were hundreds of years ago, or they would be constantly amended.
Q9- Compare the manner in which the U.S. Constitution was changed after the Civil War with the way changes were made to the Constitution during the New Deal era.
The manner in which the constitution was changes after the Civil War was through the ratification process, while the changes made in the New Deal era were by judicial trickery.
Q10- U.S. Constitution prevents legislators from making the needs of Americans their priority. This paragraph claims that the expressed purpose of the U. S. Constitution is to form a more perfect union and provide for the general welfare.
Q11- FDR made a political speech for the times; the eve of WW II. References were made in his speech that may be relevant to our position in the world today. Comment on the similarities.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt talked about how there are alway people who see what the government is doing is unconstitutional, and how the way the government is run and what rights and freedoms we can enjoy are allows being changed. FDR said that the Founding Fathers made the Constitution so that it could fit the needs of the people in any age and that is not to be looked at as an old document with old ideas. He said that the Constitution is misinterpreted but it is what we should live by as a whole because it will change to fit the people's needs, wants, and desires.
Q12- Comment on whether you think the "new idea" come to "dominate thought about government" is still the dominate idea or has the past 70 years turned it into an old idea that needs to be reformed? Make these comments brief as this question is the crux of the paper you will be preparing for submittal.
The way that the government controls the ongoings of the country is ever changing to fit the current needs of the people and therefore is always somehow new. The constitution being the guiding instrument behind our ruling bodies is then also always a new idea. The constitution is a living document that shifts and changes to the times and the government under it follows suit so the last 70 years has changed the the way we are ruled and if nothing is done to stop the continuous growth of the power supposedly given threw this ever changing constitution that hardly ever see written changes the government will over power and over rule the people because the people will and have become dependent on the government for what they themselves need to do.