24/7 writing help on your phone
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Are a very interesting topic to discuss because a lot of people agree or disagree with some of their points and the wording of the document. During class we discussed two philosophers that have discussed this topic are Jeremy Waldron and we Wil Waluchow. Furthermore I would like to expand on their views. I would like to discuss my own thoughts of the constitution, and bill of rights and what rights are given to us and I will agree and disagree with both philosophers.
However to expand on their views I would like to discuss my own thoughts of the constitution and rights given to us and I will agree and disagree with both philosophers.
I would like to start off with what is the constitution and what it is and what rights it gives and how important it is to not only each individual but America as a whole. The constitution was a document that gave Americans rights and freedoms.
The reason it was formatted was because the people wanted individuality from the British rule. Some of the key features that are up for discussion lately are the right of free speech, along with the right to bear arms that has become a very popular discussion within the past few years. You can argue that the constitution is a living breathing document on the other hand you can say no it is a solid document that its end of discussion like that’s it, however I believe a document that old expands with the times.
The country is so divided on this topic people on the right or like we need more guns less gun restriction people on the left say a lot of free-speech is hate speech when it’s something that they don’t agree with. Before I discuss the philosophers I want to discuss my viewpoints of the constitution on the day-to-day life in the American justice system. I believe the constitution is a living breathing document that changes with the times to let me expand. I am independent but I advocate for more guns. Americas believed it was our right to bear arms. The british had cannons, we had muskets, the point for firearms is defend not attack. FIrearms keep an individual safe also firearms are a key point in our defense as an individual if a tyrannical government was to overthrow.
The average american has no chance if we’re thinking about banning A.R. 15‘s while our military has airstrikes drones etc. we are under equipped. That’s a good example of changing with the times another topic you can discuss is freedom of speech a lot of people view the republicans as racist if we do not agree with a certain mindset and the left saying abortion should be a right Topics that weren’t discussed back then need to be addressed in these current times a document that all needs updates so it to say. Overall my sights on everything are that we need to edit and update documents such as this to ensure that every individual has a certain amount right within a legal limit.
Waluchow understands the constitutional rule and law and how it need not take the form of an idea that is either written or entrenched for that it had to be more difficult to change than is ordinary legislation, also the idea of separation of powers conceptually or practically necessary. Nevertheless, separation of powers is desirable in many societies, as is an entrenched, written Charter. Walichow has certain ideas and understandings of a thing he calls the five theories of constitutional interpretation. The first three, which Waluchow classifies as fixed views, are the original meaning, original intent, and hypothetical intent. The final remaining two theories are Dworkinian constructive interpretation and critical theory.
Waluchow recognized that many of these protests have some merit, but he finds them overstated. He challenges two premises accepted by both Advocates and Critics. The first is that there are ‘objective truths, concerning, for example, political morality, what the framers intended, or the Charter’s plain or original meaning, which an impartial, morally neutral judiciary is capable of discerning and drawing upon in making Charter decisions. The second is that Charters aspire to entrench the rights these truths describe or establish, as fixed points of agreement on and commitment to moral limits on government power. Waluchow rejects both of these premises.
He defends judicial review as a response to our inability to know, in advance, what political morality requires. Meanwhile, Jeremy Waldron believes that “individuals have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them without violating their rights; each person possesses inviolably founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.” Stating that individuals have rights that no one can take away no matter what. Both of these philosophers have a different viewpoint on the topic and I agree with waldren more. I believe we as individuals are born with rights that aren’t meant to be infringed upon and we shouldn’t allow for our rights to ever be taken or edited.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment