Mike K said, "1. Did the founding fathers originally think that there would be many amendments to the constitution or did they think it would stay as solid set of laws not to be changed?"
I feel that in writing the Constitution off of so little an amount of political minds, the writers of the document (Madison and company) knew that there ideas wouldn't be nationally accepted by all. The main thing is that there had to be a basis for these ideas to develop off of, if there wasn't, the amendments would just be simply original laws. Lastly, there are only 27 passed amendments, which is a phenomenally low amount for a nation document written 200 years ago.. by people with different views on politics than modern peoples.
Nat Parker said, "3. Do you think some parts of the constitution are not specific because the founding fathers could not agree on it?"
Basically the founding fathers didn't have the freedom to make the document as specific as they wanted personally because that would suggest bias and monarchical representation in a new government which was intended to be written by the people, for the people. The "broadness" of the Constitution is also the reason why we have political parties which help define our government because there are different factions of people whom wish to take different stances on parts of the Constitution too broad to be taken a specific way, so basically they are manipulating the document to benefit their personal desires, taking fair and free advantage of the flexibility of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment