To what extent is there disagreement about how effectively the constitution protects freedom
To what extent is there disagreement about how effectively the constitution protects freedom?
There is a small amount of disagreement over whether or not the US constitution protects freedom for the average American citizen – whilst many Americans feel that the constitution formally protects their liberties (for example: the first amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to their freedom of speech) others believe that the codified constitution is unnecessary and would point to nations like the United Kingdom (that do not have a codified constitution) that operate reasonably efficiently and have other methods of protecting the rights of the average person.
Those that identify themselves as more traditionalist in the United States would argue that constitution has served to protect the rights of individuals to a satisfactory standard during its centuries of operation. They would use the notion of ‘conservative pragmatism’ to suggest that the historical democratic system in place is functioning well and so does not require change. Those that consider themselves more willing to reform the American system would disagree with this and would point to several historical issues that suggest the current system has not protected freedom properly. Over the years various groups have been discriminated against – including Native Americans and African-Americans, despite the amendments to the constitution and the principles of the self-governing system that the United States of America was founded on.
There is disagreement over the constitution’s protection of the rights of minority populations (such as African-Americans) in the past. Some would argue that despite the 15th Amendment (signed in 1870) granting the right to all Americans to vote regardless of race or colour, African-Americans continued to be discriminated against for nearly a hundred years. Indeed some polling stations used literacy tests to discriminate against African-Americans up until the 1960s – giving
There is a small amount of disagreement over whether or not the US constitution protects freedom for the average American citizen – whilst many Americans feel that the constitution formally protects their liberties (for example: the first amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to their freedom of speech) others believe that the codified constitution is unnecessary and would point to nations like the United Kingdom (that do not have a codified constitution) that operate reasonably efficiently and have other methods of protecting the rights of the average person.
Those that identify themselves as more traditionalist in the United States would argue that constitution has served to protect the rights of individuals to a satisfactory standard during its centuries of operation. They would use the notion of ‘conservative pragmatism’ to suggest that the historical democratic system in place is functioning well and so does not require change. Those that consider themselves more willing to reform the American system would disagree with this and would point to several historical issues that suggest the current system has not protected freedom properly. Over the years various groups have been discriminated against – including Native Americans and African-Americans, despite the amendments to the constitution and the principles of the self-governing system that the United States of America was founded on.
There is disagreement over the constitution’s protection of the rights of minority populations (such as African-Americans) in the past. Some would argue that despite the 15th Amendment (signed in 1870) granting the right to all Americans to vote regardless of race or colour, African-Americans continued to be discriminated against for nearly a hundred years. Indeed some polling stations used literacy tests to discriminate against African-Americans up until the 1960s – giving