Please pick one change you would like to make to the constitution, draft an amendment and explain why your amendment will be beneficial
The clause that excludes all people who do not have a United States born parent or who do not have the so-named natural born Americans bothers me a great deal. This status is one of the requirements that an individual has to meet before running for the presidency in the country. The eligibility requirements are set for two offices, the president and vice president’s office. However, the constitution does not classify the natural born citizen phrase leaving room debates and myriad opinions on its concise meaning. The weight of historical authority on legal matters indicate that the phrase “natural born” could mean someone who is eligible for United States citizenship at birth or by birth. A person may be born in America or under America’s jurisdiction to parents who are U.S. citizens or in situations that meet the requirements of US. The term, however, does not cover people who were not US citizens at birth or by birth and those who have gone through the naturalization process to become citizens.
I would like to change the section that covers this required in Article 2 to read, “Any person who is a citizen of the United States is eligible to run for presidency or vice presidency”. I am saying this because there are myriad remarkable citizens of American who have served the country in different capacities but cannot run for presidency because the constitution bars them from doing so. For example, Madeleine Albright, Jennifer Granholm, Elaine Chao, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all remarkable people from Czechoslovakia, Canada, Taiwan, and Austria respectively. Changing this in the American constitution will ensure that people with the right qualities have an equal opportunity to run the country. In addition, it will provide the Americans with more democratic options to choose the person whom they think can serve best.
The vagueness and ambiguity of the constitution are said to be both a blessing and a curse, please discuss three specific items in the constitution in which the vagueness and ambiguity are both a blessing and a curse.
Vagueness and ambiguity are two essential components in the interpretation of the US constitution. Some texts in the legal texts are vague while others are ambiguous. Ambiguous texts can have more than one meaning. Other texts are vague and employ concepts with indefinite application to specific cases. Additionally, some sections of the constitution has texts that are both vague and ambiguous. Ambiguity and vagueness are fundamental concepts in the interpretation theory of the constitution. Vagueness is a curse when lawmakers use it as a tool of manipulation and control. However, lawmakers have to use it when making laws and it has some benefits. On the other hand, ambiguity is important as it leaves some powers of the government as unclear. This creates politics that allow the powers of the government to be under challenge. Ambiguity serves as the key to the constitution.
Probable cause: This phrase states that the police require reasonable belief that an individual has taken part in a crime before arresting that person. Preponderance of evidence is also another vague clause that used in civil lawsuits to determine which side has evidence with greater weight. Some clauses also have the term “facilitate,” which stands undefined and use it routinely to take private property from drug dealers. For instance, the police have permission to seize all the negotiable instruments including money that emanates from drug dealings. The importance of this vagueness is that it offers one permission to exercise control over certain developments without committing them to particular course of actions. Absence of this vagueness may mean that law enforcers may have to choose between the impossible requirement of minute specification and having no regulation. Vagueness can become a curse if legislation exceeds its limitations and nullified on grounds of the constitution. The constitution has certain ambiguities that need correction while others are adequate. The framers of the constitutions left the ambiguity as the anticipated significant changes in the years to come. The seventh Amendment stands as the best illustration of ambiguousness. In common law, suits state that the right of trial in the presence of the jury should be preserved. Common law can mean several things. The Thirteenth Amendment that existed in 1787 banned slavery as well as involuntary servitude. The bans are understood today more than they were during that time.
Please discuss whether the president has unilateral war powers or if his war powers are shared with congress
The president of the United States does not have unilateral powers to commit the country’s forces to external war. Under the constitution of the country in Article 1, section eight, clause 10, the Congress stands as the only authority given powers by the Constitution to declare war. Additionally, clause 13, 14, and 15 provides Congress with more power to make decisions that regulate and control the naval and land forces. These laws include regulations and requirements that authorize and govern deployment, maintenance, and conduct of military forces. On the other hand, Congress gives limited powers to the president to use in the event of imminent and clear danger to national security and US interests. These authorities are very specific and highly limited in time and scope. The president has to prove that there is clear and imminent danger before he can engage these powers. He may then commit the US forces for less than ninety days, under these clauses, without any approval from Congress. However, he must provide notification to Congress and provide written justification before deploying troops to war.
The war power and president’s authority acts stipulate that the president should advice some select members in all the Congress houses before or during the commitment of troops. This ensures that Congress has the time to refuse or take further action to stop the president from taking action to deploy the military improperly. The president has to act within thirty days from the time he engages troops in war to present a justification and request that shows he had sufficient reason to act in such a manner. The request and justification may include his reasons for deploying the military and give the time and objectives for the deployment. It also gives the president power to respond lawfully to clear and imminent danger immediately.
The constitution was written so that each branch has balances and checks on the other branches. Please discuss three checks that each branch has on the other branches. There should be 9 things discussed 3 checks and 3 balances
The US constitution divides the government into three separate branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary. These branches work interdependently as the Constitution sets up checks and balances system that ensures no branch has more powerful than the other does. Following is a summary of the checks and the balances that exist in the three branches.
Legislative
The legislative branch can exercise the powers to enact laws. Its checks include the following:
• It can override presidential vetoes provided votes reach two-thirds
• Has powers that surpass the purse strings and can finance execution actions
• May remove a standing president through impeachment
• Has powers approved in the senate
• The presidential appointments get approved in the Senate
The legislative branch can exercise the following checks on the judicial branch:
• Set up lower courts
• Remove judges through a process of impeachment
• Approve appointment of judges through Senate
The executive branch can exercise the following checks and balances
The executive branch has the powers to carry out the laws and it has some checks over the legislative, which include:
• It can call special Congress sessions
• It has veto authority
• Can recommend regulations
• It can appeal to citizens on matters concerning legislation
The Executive conducts the following checks on the Judicial:
• The President can appoint judges to serve in the federal and Supreme Court
The Judiciary has powers to interpret the constitution and it has the following checks on the executive:
• The judges are free from the executive branch’s control once appointed
• The courts can pass judgment on the Executive if they are unconstitutional
The Judiciary can also exercise the following power of checks on the legislative branch:
• The courts can render legislative regulations as unconstitutional
Please discuss fully: in your opinion what is the most important amendment and why
The First Amendment stands as the most essential part of the Bill of Rights. It offers protection as well as fundamental rights in different ways. Americans can practice religion as well as be free from any coercion from the state. Additionally, this amendment contains freedoms such as press, speech, and petition that make democratic self-government conceivable. This freedom is also popular, and it has the support of the people.
There is no right that does not have an exception and the some exceptions exist in the freedom of expression. Harming another person’s name or reputation is illegal through lies or violence constitutes an offense. Another limitation involves matters of national security. During this time, the amendment does not guarantee freedom of the press and speech. Overall, the First Amendment presents several things to the Americans and the citizens cannot do without it.
