In the above video you will see an older recreation of the founders creation of the constitution.
The creation of the constitution was a long and complicated process based off of the needs of the people. It was, in my opinion, the most important moment for our country. Today some people talk about many parts of it as being up to debate on its meaning. A common example of this is the popular gun control argument “It didn’t mean modern day weaponry.” This has led to many an argument within politics and will most likely continue to do so for a long time. It is not possible to ask the founders a about their definitions on these articles so all we can do is attempt to come to an agreement somewhere.
Of course, the above video is in no way entirely accurate. This is simply the version I believe is the closest to accurate amongst the ones I found. Others may believe otherwise. We see this in a lot of older documents important to us in the fact that many of us see a particular interpretation as more accurate. This creates a divide that causes many problems in our life today.
That being said my questions to you are:
- Is there something like this that you see as misinterpreted or wrong in our constitution? If so, explain.
2. What problems do you that have stemmed off this?
3. Do you see this video as an accurate recreation? Why or why not?
4a. Look for examples of debates in our congress that have been on how the constitution is to be interpreted and provide an example .
4b. How do you think it should have been interpreted? Why?
5. What problems in our country do you think have stemmed off of misunderstandings such as these?
Side note: I am not very good at making questions. And i would never expect someone to actually watch this video for an assignment due to the fact that it is 2 hours long.
1) Nothing stands out to me as a gross misinterpretation of the constitution. Interpretation is often reflective of a population’s values. Thus, the Constitution’s subjectivity cannot stray far enough from the founding principles to be of consequence. Some may sight gun laws as such a misinterpretation due to innovation in firearms. However, our laws reflect that interpretation. Guns may be regulated by states but not banned.
2) If there were to be a gross misinterpretation I do not believe it would be too much of a failing. A government should reflect the current values of the population it serves, not the values of the population a few generations ago. And if my previous statement that interpretations reflect beliefs is correct, and the individuals in government represent the people. Then, in my eyes, there can be no issue. There are some issues I could see arising with willful misinterpretation to further ulterior motives. And government will never be a perfect representation of a population. But I believe the problems which stem from this will self-correct given enough time. Perhaps I am overoptimistic.
3) I think the video cannot be perfect, but it is reasonably accurate.
4a) The legality of a peacetime draft was a debate in Congress on how the constitution is to be interpreted. The particular example I am thinking of is during the second world war.
4b) I disagree with their conclusions. However, I believe the usefulness of a peacetime draft far outways whatever moral cost violating the constitution may have, and I would have done the same thing were I a congressman at the time.
1) Nothing stands out to me as a gross misinterpretation of the constitution. Interpretation is often reflective of a population’s values. Thus, the Constitution’s subjectivity cannot stray far enough from the founding principles to be of consequence. Some may sight gun laws as such a misinterpretation due to innovation in firearms. However, our laws reflect that interpretation. Guns may be regulated by states but not banned.
2) If there were to be a gross misinterpretation I do not believe it would be too much of a failing. A government should reflect the current values of the population it serves, not the values of the population a few generations ago. And if my previous statement that interpretations reflect beliefs is correct, and the individuals in government represent the people. Then, in my eyes, there can be no issue. There are some issues I could see arising with willful misinterpretation to further ulterior motives. And government will never be a perfect representation of a population. But I believe the problems which stem from this will self-correct given enough time. Perhaps I am overoptimistic.
3) I think the video cannot be perfect, but it is reasonably accurate.
4a) The legality of a peacetime draft was a debate in Congress on how the constitution is to be interpreted. The particular example I am thinking of is during the second world war.
4b) I disagree with their conclusions. However, I believe the usefulness of a peacetime draft far out ways whatever moral cost violating the constitution may have, and I would have done the same thing were I a congressman at the time.