Reference no: EM133708582

Assignment:

A youtube video

Should Ours be a 'Living Constitution?'

The US Constitution was drafted in order to overcome a host of problems and challenges experienced by the early United States. It arose from various discussions, arguments, and compromises between factions of delegates in the summer of 1787 (largely the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists). One could argue that the fact that the Constitution exists (after scrapping the problematic Articles of Confederation) makes clear that early American leaders recognized the need to be flexible and adaptable-- and willing to reject that which is not working in favor of something that meets the needs of the current era.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself opined that laws and constitutions should expire every nineteen years and be rewritten according to the needs of the modern day, stating that "the dead shall not rule the living." While this new framework of government known as the Constitution certainly strengthened the nation, providing us with foundational doctrines such as federalism and the separation of powers, it has led to a range of newer questions not unlike the problems faced by the framers themselves during the early years of the United States:

What to do when the current framework of government appears unable to address the needs of the current era? When the threshold for amending (changing) the Constitution is so difficult as to be virtually impossible, how is a responsible country to adapt to a rapidly changing world?

Should we rely on the strict "originalist" reading of the Constitution? Or do we take the approach of judicial pragmatism, also known as the "living Constitution" approach, which acknowledges Jefferson's thoughts on the matter. These questions are not just abstract. With the recent overturning by the Supreme Court of certain protections Americans had come to expect, we are witnessing a resurgence of "originalism" unseen in almost a century.

In addition to the textbook this week, check out the following video and article excerpt on the debate over how we should understand and interpret the Constitution. We should consider these questions as thought our cherished liberties depend on it. They very well may. After checking out the video and article excerpt, think about the following:

• In what ways has society significantly changed since the late 1700s? When it comes to preserving liberty, do these changes matter? Is it necessary that these changes be reflected in how we understand the Constitution in the modern day?
• What, if any, are the merits of the 'originalist' approach to interpreting the Constitution? Think of a modern-day issue affecting Americans. How does/would the "originalist" approach affect that issue and is that preferable to the "living Constitution" approach Why or why not?
• Despite the words of some framers themselves alluding to the need that "the dead should not rule the living," why might the argument against a "living constitution" still receive such tremendous support in certain segments of society in 2022?