Constitution Is Fit For Purpose

Question 1

Weaker, is fit for purpose as vagueness allows continuous updates, interpretive amendments from the SC

Answer 1

• rigid amendment process, courts decisions have updated rights when amendments unlikely
• roe v wade 1973, obergerfel v hodges 2015 same sex marriage both protected under the 14th amendment
• federal gov expand powers when necessary
• A1 S8 elastic clause mucholoc v Maryland give power to gov to create a national bank, congress has enumerated power to collect tax
• bank deemed “ necessary and proper”

Question 2

Vagueness of constitution means there is few limits on SCOTUS

Answer 2

• enumerated power of court has expanded, interpretations are arguably “what the justices say it is”
• allow presidents to extend their power beyond what FF intended
• court vital role in interpretation but judicial philosophy will expand or restrict rights/power of gov
• 6-3 constructionalist bias, originalism followed
• in past loose constructionalist interpretation (Obergefel)
• dependent on philosophy, rights can’t be guaranteed
• A2 vague powers of president, allow exec to expand but FF would not have foreseen the extent of recent
• Obama DACA DAPA illegal im avoid deportation
• trump implied role as commander in chief to release defence funds to build Mexico wall - beyond powers in constit

Question 3

Weaker, difficulty of amendments ensures principles of democracy are protected

Answer 3

• lengthy + cross party support
• congress 2/3 supermaj in both chambers, state ratification 3/4
• states ratification upholds federalism A4 and states “reserved powers” in A10
• states with smaller populations have a say
• prevents abuses of power from a single person
• bush request power to veto a single item within a bill 2006, denied by congress
• democracy through bipartisanship, polarisation

Question 4

Amendment process limits democracy, requires support that cannot be achieved

Answer 4

-polarisation in current pol, contrasting ideologies, never come to agreement on amendments
- electoral college 700 attempts to abolish as it results in undemocratic winners with minority votes
- 2016 trump win against Clinton
- 2000 bush won 47% pop vote compared to al gore 48% but lower ECV
- difficult to incorporate new ideas 1982 equal rights amendment failed to reach required member of states, quashed
- would have provided equal rights by the federal states on the account of sex
- only 27/40 amendments passed with the necessary support of both houses and states

Question 5

Weaker, specific powers prove its fit for purpose

Answer 5

• SOP, resign if join new branch
• SCOTUS checking powers
• ## enshrined power of states rights ( voting rights act) (Shelby v holder)

Question 6

Specific powers outlined in constitution prove its not fit for purpose

Answer 6

• ability of federal gov to strike down state laws,
• strike down abortion laws in Texas