Ratified in 1788, the U.S. Constitution was created on the basis of life centuries ago – when the government’s role called for alternative demands than what present-day citizens call for. As society has advanced throughout the past 200 years, political parties have changed, technology has evolved and the demands for the U.S. government have shifted.
Considering the fact that the Constitution serves as the backbone of the U.S. government, it would be naive to neglect its faults in the American system. With a complex amendment process, the most recent amendment to the Constitution was in 1992. Since the ratification of the document, only 27 amendments have been made, as reported by the United States Senate.
Take for example one of mankind’s greatest creations: technology. Written in an age before social media, mass communication or internet, the Constitution fails to account for modern-day circumstances.
In an effort to communicate with constituents, politicians from all three branches of government are frequently active on different social media platforms. In the recent past, former President Donald Trump was a popular topic of conversation, with people debating whether he was at fault for the Jan. 6 insurrection or not on social media.
In the days following the violence, Trump was banned from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and nearly every other mainstream social media site. Controversy surrounding these bans called on a question for the new age: How should politicians present themselves on social media?
Nowhere in the Constitution is how politics should be represented on the internet accounted for.
Sophomore Muskan Mehta considered the exigencies of the Constitution and how it varies from today’s reality. “With social media, politicians are better able to communicate their viewpoints and stances to more people. This country has gone through so much in the past: the industrial revolution, Civil Rights Movement and new technology, so I feel like the Constitution does not mean the same thing as it used to,” she shared.
While the digital age challenges the application of the Constitution today, other aspects of the Constitution are in dire need of reconsideration. The Second Amendment of the Constitution has raised questions about national safety and how its initial exigences no longer apply. According to Cornell Law School, the constitutional right to bear arms is not so direct. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” reads the U.S. Constitution.
While some argue “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” portion of the amendment allows for individual constitutional right over firearm possession, others argue the “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” part delegitimizes the amendment’s application to life today.
Seeing as though the U.S. is no longer navigating through the American Revolutionary War, the right to bear arms appears to be outdated and ambiguous. In a study done by Everytown, it was discovered that the gun homicide rate is 25 times higher in the U.S. than any other high-income nation in the world. There is no doubt that the U.S. suffers from a gun epidemic, so why has the Second Amendment not been revised?
“If it is so important for people to own guns and weapons, then I believe the government should implement more laws to ensure gun safety in the nation,” shared Junior Claire Saklar. Due to frequent gun violence in the nation, Saklar discussed the need for stricter gun regulation. “Because we are no longer in the 1700s or 1800s, we do not know who exactly has access to weapons — the wrong people are going to get their hands on a gun.”
While the Constitution still provides essential protections for the citizens of the U.S., other ideas must be reconsidered. With evolving politics and a complex society, Americans have raised questions over the ambiguity of the Constitution. With such sacrality in its role in the U.S. government, the Constitution must stay up to date to allow the U.S. to progress.
