Is the Constitution all that its cracked up to be?

The Constitution of the United States is often thought of and referred to as the single document that defines what America is as a political entity. It is a source of nationalism and patriotism because it lays the foundation upon which all political issues are rooted in. It epitomizes (not in the clearest way) the terms upon which our government was created and is maintained today. Perhaps the most important feature of the Constitution is the fact that it is the document that not only produces American democracy, but also regulates it. It does this by repeatedly reassuring the rights of its citizens as the original purpose of such as government. It is a work that is often seen as being too vague and even detrimental however, to some of the key tenets/facets of democracy. Sentiments such as this would imply that the Framers of the Constitution did not have the foresight to upon which to gauge their opinions. In fact, the Framers were thoughtful enough and inspired enough to realize that a nation built on democratic principles will be subject to changing opinions and currents of thought that naturally come about as time goes by. With this in mind, it is important to understand the basis of the “vagueness” of the Constitution and the sheer multitudes of paradoxes and moral sentiments that such a document must entail. Gaining a grasp on the motives and wishes behind the writers of the Constitution allows us, the citizenry of this nation, to understand our rights as citizens, which in turn should help us become more civically empowered.

    The part of the Constitution that would be most pertinent to individual freedoms specifically would be the Bill of Rights. Few question the significance of this document, but the role and rights of citizens are a source of debate even in a democracy. Woll writes in his fifth document that the ambiguity that readers of the Constitution are sometimes faced with is actually a predetermined and carefully thought out ploy of the Founders to maintain democracy for the centuries to come. In an article titled, “Debating Democracy”, the author argues that democracy is really only the standard for all other forms of government because it lacks as many flaws as they do. That isn’t to say that it is flawless. To different perspectives on the same government reflect the varied opinions that people have regarding the Constitution or our government as a whole, but the beauty that is almost universally recognized is the fact that democracy has been an enduring for of government so far that does a seemingly exceptional job at balancing government involvement with the lives of the citizens as well as protecting and ensuring our personal freedoms.

     What I find most compelling about democracy having read about its roots and modern connotations is that in theory, every type of government from restrictive communism to libertarian fascism is perfectly designed to better the quality of the lives of its citizens. In reality, history shows us that this is far from the truth. Where I find the most consensus among different democratic philosophies or ideologies that I have read about or heard is that democracy excels as a form of government when it comes to human nature. I feel predisposed to democracy (maybe because it is all I know) because it effectively protects me (and controls me) while at the same time maintaining my freedom. The role that government should have in an individuals life is often a great source of debate but the great thing about America is that it is able to fluctuate from one end of the political spectrum to the other based on the situation. With a system like communism, you are pretty much in no need of protection, but your rights are sacrificed as a result. With respect to the Bill of Rights, I think key Founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson realized that on order to maintain a strong and favorable government, there would have to be safeguards in place to prevent any one branch or person in the government from exploiting the positions power at the cost of democracy. They proposed the Bill of Rights to the First United States Congress in 1787 as amendments to the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights basically outlined and specified some of the key rights that are inalienable to the citizens of the United States. In effect on December of 1791, these amendments officially protected the governed from the governing. Let’s face it, any sort of organization in charge of running a nation and people has the potential for bad. Hopefully, the Founders outlined the regulations and restrictions of government clearly in the Constitution (which they sort of did to a reasonable extent) but as an “auxiliary precaution”, the Bill of Rights was put into place under the institution of the Fifth Amendment. Some of the rights preserved by the Bill of Rights are the ones that we hear referred to all the time. Popular ones are the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the restriction of any unauthorized search and seizure or any cruel and unusual punishment. These rights make democracy appealing to the citizens but the article "Debating Democracy", argues that such rights are secondary to democracy and that the ideals that are unique to American democracy such as equality and civic duty are necessary. He writes, "The notion does not, however, suggest that people must necessarily be equal in their impact on the political system..."(Debating Democracy 36). He also writes about democracy and citizen participation," Political effectiveness... depends on three varying factors: resources, especially time, money, and skills; psychological engagement with politics; and 'access to networks through which individuals can be recruited to political life"(Debating Democracy 36). This article contrasts greatly with the attitudes of the Bill of Rights and Woll's ideas of democracy for the people. 

    As 

--John