The Constitution Law Of The Land Or

The Constitution: Law Of The Land Or Outdated News Essay, Research Paper

The Constitution: Law of the Land or Outdated News? Our constitution was written over a century ago, by our forefathers who had thebest intentions. But what they did not have was a way to predict how our society hasevolved, and how the Supreme Law of the Land would come under question. Many partsof the Constitution have been left open to interpretation due to the changing times andstagnance of the Constitution itself. How would our forefathers feel about new issuesarising? Their original intent is something we do not know. But different argumentsprovide many different opinions in the public, and cause argumentation whether or not theConstitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land . Some topics are more discussed thanothers. In my opinion, the right to bear arms is constantly under question. Free speech isalso being brought up, especially in the case of music and television. The First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech. This gives us as citizensthe right to say what we want, and to express our feelings. But lately, Congress seems tohave been criticizing many venues for free speech. Television talk shows, lyrics in music,and even some publications have been sources of controversy. But what can happen? Can Congress put a ban on these things? But no matter what the content of the talk showis, or how offensive the rap lyrics are, civil libertarians have taken no steps to regulatethese things, because of their belief in the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitutionbelieved that to have a successful democracy, there must be a free exchange of ideas andthoughts between all people and government. The First Amendment is a reflection of thisbelief. But did they picture Jerry Springer having the KKK on his show, or the 2 LiveCrew rap group calling women the B word, and using extreme profanity in all of theirsongs? It is hard to believe they did. And whenever talk of stopping these shows orgroups come up, so does the ever familiar words of the First Amendment Congress shallmake no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. But there is someinterpretation of the First Amendment for our protection. Speech that is consideredobscene, false, or seditious is not protected under the First Amendment. Now the FirstAmendment does not say this in its words, but this has been the interpretation of it inrecent years. In the Woll reader, there is an excerpt by John Stuart Mill that discusses theFirst Amendment rights. He believes that although free speech and press is a right grantedby the Constitution, there must be boundaries placed on them. But this brings up anotherquestion. Where do you draw boundaries? Where does one draw the line that a talkshows content is too obscene, or a song is too vulgar to be aired? What is the definitionof obscene? Of vulgar? There are no discrepancies in the Constitution that define theseterms or the restrictions that should be used. It only says freedom of the speech and press. Period. So should we let these shows and songs to be aired to the public, free for viewingby our children and impressionable youth? One must also keep in mind the artist andwriters that have come under fire. These lyrics may be the voice of the musician, and thereason they are so vulgar is because that is all they saw growing up. Violence in ourinner-cities, coupled with the lack of a solid education can lead to people who know noother life other than an obscene one. So do they have the right to put these lyrics on ourstores shelves? If you were a strict constitutionalist, then yes these people have the rightto voice their opinion. More liberal views would believe that this garbage has no place inour society, and is a blatant abuse of the rights granted to us. To find a middle ground anda compromise is the challenge, but no answer is within sight. In colonial times, most men kept guns and firearms to protect themselves. Thereason for this is because often times, the only defense against the British and Indians werethemselves or local militias. This was seen as the best way to keep peace on order amongthe colonies. The Second Amendment was passed to ensure this right for these reasons. But the times have changed, and there are no longer local or state militias. We now havepolice forces, sheriffs, and other local law agencies to serve and protect us. As citizens,

and as tax payers, this protection is there for us whenever we need. We no longer mustdefend ourselves from British invasion, or will have to quickly organize our neighborhoodinto a force that is ready for battle. So there is no longer a need for citizens to keep andbear arms, right? Wrong. This is another amendment that has come under a lot ofcontroversy lately. Guns are a big concern of our society today. With gang violence, kidsshooting each other, and accidental deaths due to ignorant parents who do not lock uptheir guns, there have been major moves to get the guns off the streets. But this wouldalso force many responsible gun owners to give up their firearms also. The National RifleAssociation has been a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, saying it is theirConstitutional right to keep their weapons. Gun supporters say that many of them usetheir guns for hunting and recreational purposes, and feel safer at home against break-insbecause they have guns for their protection. But the issue of gun control also has itsbacking. The Brady Bil