• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Is The US Constitution Too Rigid To Be Effective?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Is The US Constitution Too Rigid To Be Effective? The United States Constitution has served as a vital framework for the government and as a guarantee of the individual freedoms of US citizens since 1788, but from its creation, people have had ideas on how to improve this fundamental document. The vast majority of these ideas have been unsuccessful due to the rigid nature of the Constitution and the lengthy process involved when trying to amend it. Whether or not the inflexible nature of the constitution is an advantage or disadvantage is debatable as there are arguments that suggest the Constitution is made ineffective since it is so hard to change but also points arguing otherwise. Within 18 months of the Constitutions creation, the Bill of Rights was passed, adding 10 amendments to the brand new document. From 1789 to 1992, the Constitution was amended 27 times, and through judicial review, the meaning of various parts of the Constitution has changed many times. ...read more.

Middle

This method has been used only once; to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. The Supreme Court has also stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend. This long period of time taken to get proposals through the systems in place and time taken to ratify means that proposals rarely make any headway and the moment of their need has often passed by the time they are through Congress. This suggests that the system is too rigid to be effective as the time taken to get things done is ridiculous and often defeats the purpose of the amendment. Another problem with the inflexibility of the Constitution is due to the way it sets out how checks and balances operate. ...read more.

Conclusion

It can be argued that Americans have done well and that their constitution has been successful in both protecting their rights as well as providing the backbone for the 'beacon on the hill' nation that the US has become. The long amendment process has been able to prevent short-term political changes and instead people can rely on the Supreme Court to change their interpretation to match the times, allowing the Constitution to remain up to date. For example the Roper vs. Simmons in which the Supreme Court decided that there should be no death penalty for under 18's and deemed it unconstitutional to do so. The vagueness of the Constitution seems to combat its rigidness, as it is so vague that it can have many different interpretations, which, as mentioned earlier, allow the Supreme Court to keep it up to date with modern interpretation. This also allows different states to hold laws different to their neighbouring states such as policies on same sex marriages, capital punishment and gun laws. This means that states can accommodate the different needs of their people through initiatives/referendums. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. How effective are the checks and balances of the Constitution today?

    Neither house can adjourn for more than three days, without the consent of the other house; this is an example of when the President can use his power of adjournment over Congress if neither house can agree on adjournment. The House of Representatives has the power to impeach the executive

  2. How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century?

    Britain had been intent on retention of her veto. Legislation can be vehemently contested against by Britain, yet if a majority of members approve it, it will be executed as law in the UK. It is easily identifiable that EU law is far more authoritative and constraining on the British statute books.

  1. How well does the US Constitution Work

    What history told these men was that unchecked power in the hands of a few inevitably leads to a corrupt and oppressive form of government. The modern era in which we all live clearly cannot be compared to two centuries ago.

  2. Has the US Constituion Protected Individual Liberties?

    The US sees 26 times as many murders carried out by gun shootings than the UK, a country which has much stricter regulations on gun ownership. Surely each individual in the US should have a right to security, however, this security is undermined by the second amendment.

  1. The British Constitution

    The Senate and the House of Representatives both have equal powers however, the Senate is the senior body and has specific powers to investigate and to approve or disapprove presidential appointments to the government, federal civil service or courts, and to approve or disapprove treaties.

  2. Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court

    Clarence Thomas? appearance before the Committee could have been prevented through a private investigation. Senate committee hearings for confirmations can be hijacked and can be characterised as what Calvin Mackenzie describes as ?invasive scrutiny and cruel and punishing publicity?[18]. It appears that senate committees can be subverted to political battlegrounds and forums of slander and scandal.

  1. Assess the view that the US Constitution often ensures limited government

    The executive also holds two checks on the judiciary. The first is the ability to appoint judges to the Supreme Court[13]. Appointments to the Supreme Court are very political appointments. The constitution can be fairly vague in parts, and therefore, a judge?s political position will likely influence their decision, meaning that the executive can have a big influence on decisions of the courts.

  2. How effective has the US been at defending civil liberties at a time of ...

    Bush's only ally was Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued that the president may suspend the Constitution at will if he believes, or claims to believe, that he is doing so to protect the country. The result is that the balance between effective government and personal freedom has tilted dangerously away from liberty, undermining the core principle of the Constitution.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work