The Bill of Privileges is an essential wellspring of validity in our general public. It has molded and laid out the crucial privileges and opportunities vital to life. It is the premise of our broad set of laws, giving the belief to the balanced governance that safeguards our freedoms and freedoms. The Bill of Privileges is a wellspring of validity since it provides an unmistakable and steady norm for securing our liberties and freedoms. By setting out the privileges to be safeguarded, the Bill of Freedoms fills in as a wellspring of confirmation and security to residents while giving the premise to government responsibility. This essay aims to discuss the credibility of the amending America article, which examines the bill of rights and the Constitution of the United States.
The amending America source on the correct bill was published in September 2022 (Bernstein, pg. 1). The article was written in 1993 by Richard Bernstein and Jerome Agel but was later revised in 2022 (Bernstein, pg. 1). The source is current since it was published in 2022. It is credible as it provides up-to-date information.
The Bill of Rights and its modifications are not the article’s primary subject. Instead, it discusses the more significant issue of constitutional modifications and the discussions and disagreements surrounding the amendment procedure. However, the paper discusses several aspects of the bill of rights (Bernstein, pg. 45).
The target audience seems likely to be a general readership interested in topics relating to American politics, government, and history based on the title of the article, “Amending America: If We Love the Constitution So Much, Why We Still Trying.” The post’s author seems interested in explaining why the United States has attempted to change the Constitution several times, even though it is regarded as a sacred text in American politics and culture (Bernstein, pg. 27-30). The article might bear some significance with different perusers, including the people keen on American history, political theory, and regulation, as well as the people ready on current discussions about sacred change and the job of the Constitution in American culture. Furthermore, the article might hold importance with people keen on issues connected with a majority rules system, portrayal, and the overall influence in government.
The content is typically suitable for a broad audience that is educated, aware, and concerned about American history and political issues. The writers include a historical and political context to bolster their claims and explain their thoughts clearly and succinctly (Bernstein, pg. 6-10). Also, they demonstrate complicated concepts and ideas with examples and analogies, which makes it easier for readers to comprehend the content.
There were many sources, such bill of Rights by L.R. Monk’s privacy constitution moments by N Richards. The article on amending America was chosen over others because this well-written, educational work offers an insightful overview of the procedure for altering the U.S. Constitution. Interviews with professors and legal professionals are among the many sources the well-researched essay uses, so it is comfortable to use the basis for research (Bernstein, pg. 1-5). The writers address various proposed changes that have caused controversy throughout the years and the past and present political elements that have rendered it challenging to modify the Constitution (Bernstein, pg.10-14).
The article on Amending America by Jerome Agel and Richard Bernstein was later published by Plunkett lake press in 2022 (Bernstein, pg1). At the University of California, Los Angeles, Richard Bernstein teaches constitutional law, while at the University of California, Berkeley, Jerome Agel teaches history (Bernstein, pg.1). Due to their extensive backgrounds in constitutional law and history, both writers are knowledgeable about the Constitution’s background and its different arguments surrounding it. Unfortunately, there is no publication or email address to provide as a point of comparison.
The authors extensively use mandatory and optional sources to provide a thorough, nuanced, and accurate summary of the experiences and current state of the U.S. Sacred Revision process (Bernstein, pg. 56-61). The essay gives readers a thoughtful analysis of the challenges surrounding the most popular method of amending the U.S. Constitution (Bernstein, pg. 17). It is well-informed and attractively written. The paper has yet to undergo peer review or refereeing. Sure, additional sources can verify the facts in the article. For instance, the American Constitution Center’s figures on the number of Constitutional Amendment efforts since the writers used 1789. Many more sources, including the websites of the congressional library and the U.S. Senate, can be used to confirm this information. No, the article’s language and tone are neither impartial nor emotionless. The writers make a convincing case for the Constitution and emphasize how crucial it is to alter it to keep it current and accurate for the times. The Constitution and history were held in high regard, and there is reverence and respect for them. Still, there is also recognition of the reality that they must be updated to reflect modern society (Bernstein, pg. 8). The writers present a compelling argument for why it is crucial to modify the Constitution to keep it current, and their tone and language are persuasive and passionate.
The goal is to discuss the background and justifications for constitutional modifications (Bernstein, pg. 4). The writers examine why the Founding Fathers initially included the authority to alter the Constitution and why it has led to many amendments. Together with the achievements and shortcomings of the constitutional amendment, they also talk about the many groups which have pushed for amendments throughout the years (Chemerinsky, pg. 15). The authors then discuss why they believed it was important for the Founding Fathers to include the authority to change the Constitution first and why it is still essential today. The writers criticize the U.S. Constitution’s inconsistent treatment of contemporary challenges and the necessity of amending it to deal with them. The writers contend that to ensure the country’s continuing prosperity, the U.S. Constitution has to be updated to accommodate contemporary challenges. The writers do not argue for or against any particular religion in the article. Still, they advise that the Constitution be changed to better meet the requirements of the populace (Bernstein, pg. 20). The writers also have cultural discrimination since they see the Constitution as an essential part of American history that has to be protected. The writers offer their views on the necessity of amending the United States Constitution, arguing that specific action is required to address contemporary challenges, which can reflect personal bias.
The counterargument and rebuttal to this article are that the United States Constitution is a historical document that shouldn’t be changed or endured since it has endured the test of time (Murrell, pg. 45). Even though the Constitution has remained in place for many years, it should stay the same. The Constitution intended to be a dynamic instrument modified to meet the populace’s demands in a developing society. As the Constitution’s authors anticipated that laws and social norms would change over time, they built an amendment mechanism to accommodate this. Since the country’s founding, the Constitution has undergone several revisions that have reinforced its foundation and safeguarded our rights and liberties. It is essential to amend the Constitution to maintain the strength and responsiveness of our form of governance(Murrell, pg. 40).
In conclusion, the criteria for the article’s credibility were appropriately considered. The authors support a more transparent and inclusive approach to revising the Constitution that actively engages citizens and professionals from various fields. The article’s overall message highlights the necessity of protecting the democratic ideals and values reflected in the Constitution while simultaneously acknowledging the need for change and advancement in American society.
Work Cited
Bernstein, Richard B. Amending America: If We Love the Constitution So Much, Why Do We Keep Trying to Change It? Plunkett Lake Press, 2022. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0e-LEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=american+constitution+bill+of+rights&ots=yc-Y1IqlEz&sig=xcqe6qeEUZx8us1T1KcqnC_ph4w
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Bill of Rights.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 16 January 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution. Accessed 22 March 2023.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional law: principles and policies. Aspen Publishing, 2019. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GJWcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=american+constitution+bill+of+rights&ots=JdWNCGu0k-&sig=GdAWPROfLeAufVHehQLWyB317VU
Murrell, Peter. “Design and evolution in institutional development: The insignificance of the English Bill of Rights.” Journal of Comparative Economics 45.1 (2017): 36-55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596716300543
write