Think back to the year 1787: there were no phones, computers or television. No invitro fertilization, rights for gay marriage, or surveillance technology. Now look at today, 2011. Telephones, computers, televisions, gay rights, invitro fertilization are now a daily discussion in todays society. Our Founding Fathers had no way of predicting the advancement in technology, or else they would have included it in the Constitution.
Our Constitution is now outdated and cannot fully apply directly to todays society. Rather than having different ways to interpret the Constitution, it should just be amended to incorporate the technological advances of today.
I also believe that since todays population is more exposed to some of the new technologies, if the constitution was to be amended today, we would be able to better predict some of the future technological more efficiently than the founding fathers. This would allow the Constitution to be applicable for a longer period of time without the need to be amended once again.
The first reason that the constitution should be amended is because of the new questioning of reproductive rights that have been a dominant topic in todays society. The world health organization defines reproductive rights as the right for all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence . This also brings up questions such as do the parents have the right to choose the sexuality of their child? What rights do the fetus? There is nothing in the Constitution that clearly answers these questions. This leaves it up to interpretation of the government and court. Rather than having different interpretations, the constitution just needs to be amended so there can be a clear stand.
Also, with new technologies such as invitro fertilization, the opportunity to create a family broadened for many people. In John A. Robertons article that we discussed in class, the believed that these new reproductive technologies should be protected, even if they are not applauded. As technological developments occur, technology will exert pressure on procreative practices and the legal rights to protect them.
As conceptions of family and parental choice change, the courts and legislatures will need to respond accordingly.
The second issue regarding why the constitution needs to be amended is the problem regarding privacy. There is a whole new world of surveillance activities that have been created since the Constitution was drafted. These new inventions, have changed the way the 4th amendment stands.
In regard to police forces, the fourth amendment states that the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, again unreasonable searches and seizures. Today, there are many loopholes police and even the average man can get around that violates ones privacy rights, but does not violate the constitution.
In Jeffrey Rosens article that we discussed in class, he suggested that in the near future the would be program though facebook and other networking cites that would be able to have 24/7 surveillance on a person, and allow to view it. Rosen proposed a hypothetical app called open planet through facebook that can track everyones move. Since there is nothing in the constitution that says this is a violation of the constitution, nothing can be done to prevent it.
If we wait to long to amend the constitution, the word privacy will soon be a word of the past. It is also a possibility that a catastrophic i9/11 attack could happen. America has a reputation of waiting for catastrophic event to happen in order to make a change. The patriot act was created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack.
We need to learn from the mistakes of the past, and fix them to create a better future. We cannot keep this ignorant attitude of if we see no immediate problem then there is no problem because then america as a country will just keep cycling though this vicious cycle. A change needs to made now to include surveillance technologies into the constitution in order to properly protect the privacy of americans.
The final reason why there needs to be an amendment to the constitution is no framework for preventable material in the Constitution. With such advances in biotechnology, people now have the resources to create machines that have the potential to be smarter than their creator. Once they pass the point of a human, their progress can no longer be predicted.
This brings up the questions: what exactly qualifies as a human? Where do GMOs fall into perspective? The constitution makes these questions nearly impossible to answer because it is not addressed. Therefore, the constitution needs to be amended to incorporate the advancement of biotechnology.
In conclusion, coming full circle, the current constitution simply cannot properly address some of the pressing issues of todays technological savvy society. As stated before, there are different interpretations of the constitution. The liberal interpretation has a more open mind view to the constitution; they use it more as just a guideline. Whereas, the conservatives are more close minded and take the constitution more literally.
This creates many discrepancies, and most times creates more questions than answers to issues. If the constitution was amended, there would ideally be more answers and less questions to be answered.
Also, on a more global outlook, many counties look to the United States for ideas and guidance. If we were to amend to constitution it could spark ideas within other countries, and potentially give them ideas on how to solve their own issues. It only takes one person, and in this case country, to make a change that could affect the world.
We have to look at the bigger picture. By amending the constitution we will not only be benefiting our country, but also create a global response to have other countries question their own constitution.
