Needed Changes and Amendments in the U.S. Constitution - Assignment Example

The US bill of rights has some assertions which need to be amended and if possible repealed to meet a changing globe where each and every thing a person does is well scrutinized. This is the case in areas dealing with terrorism, voting and drinking among its population. Recently after September 9/11, there has been the creation of two Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 as well as the Military Commission Act of 2006. These Acts have collectively denied the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal assault/search, denial of unusual punishment-corporal and the freedom from the illegal acquiring of private property. All these acts have led the Bill of Rights being disregarded in the rush to make it quicker to investigate people after which they are put in jail and tortured if necessary. According to Giraldi, P (2008), a recent executive has authorized the President to get the property of anyone found or suspected of threatening the stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. To him, the order does not give permission for the concerned party to challenge the information which seizure is based on. According to Giraldi, P (2008) further, the United States will have to deal with home grown terrorists soon and that, for the country to be on the safe side, something has to be done in anticipation so as to neutralize the problem. The bill of rights should deals firmly with this issue by creating of a commission which will be charged with holding hearings, conducting investigations and to determine whether various groups which exist in the country can be called terrorists. To him, this commission should be allowed to propose a new dispensation that will enable the government to take punitive action as it deems fit against the said groups as well as the individuals who are associated with such groups. Unlike in the past, this commission should go around the country holding hearings meant to find the terrorists and root them out completely. This commission will empower its members to prepare for hearings to obtain testimonies while administering oaths to potential witnesses. This translates to more hearings running at the same in various parts of the country. However, homegrown terrorism prevention Act can easily be abused against any group which pressures the political system and be dumped as terrorists. The September 9/11 unleashed American lack of trust towards foreigners. The country has spent billions of dollars while strengthening law enforcement as well as intelligence capabilities against terror; in investigating and making arrests. However, what is needed so much now is not the amount of money to be used in foreign countries e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terror from far distances, but to fight terror from within which is seen by many as the only remaining option. In so doing, the above needs to be entrenched into the Bill of Rights so that the necessary organs can be instituted to deal with this menace once and for all since one of the obligations of the state is to over security to its citizens. According to Barnes (2004), seizing ones assets which are meant to produce money so as to finance terror is upheld and all should be in agreement that, this is the right thing to do to counter terrorism. The world is changing so fast such that, the policies in use which advocate for fighting terrorist organization were they are is long gone. As seen from above, the militias may be living within the society we are living in. This makes it complicated and makes every concerned party aware of the dangers of the homegrown terrorists which are dangerous than those residing far from the country. Is this regard, a strong legislation should be enacted as proposed by Giraldi, P (2008) so as to minimize the menace at home. It should give all law enforcement agencies the power to seize and the power to imprison any person thought to be involved in terror activities. To the supporters of such acts, their belongings should be confiscated to render them useless in the financing of terror. Countries thought to be financier of terror in the United States should be dealt with firmly in legislation; may be the US should not deal with such countries or US citizens. This can be made powerful if some legislation in their support is enacted. Another amendment which should be considered is the legal drinking age. In America, the legal drinking age is 21 although not every body at that age should drink e.g. soldiers. According to Engs, R (1998), this age should be lowered say to about 18 or 19. To her, young people should be allowed to take drinks in conducive environments such as restaurants, pubs and during official functions. She proposes that, in such situations, they should be taught responsible drinking through role modeling as well as through educational programs. To her, mature drinking will be expected in such arrangements. Her opinion is based on research she did concerning college age and history of drinking habits in the United States. Majority of students under 21 consume alcohol in unorganized manner. This is because, drinking by these youth is seen as a form of rebellion against college/school authority as a symbol of grown up (Engs, R 1998). America has tried to prohibit drinking by under age at least twice in the past in order to take control of irresponsible drinking problems; in the 1920s in the 1850s. Both laws were finally repealed due to the fact that, they were unenforceable and the outcomes towards them which really caused other social problems to the youths. Going the same way today will be like repeating history by making the same mistakes that were made in the past and which did not work at all. Since prohibition did not work then, it will not work now at the age of 21. The disobedience of the current laws university students is seen nowadays. The probability of those under the age of 21 being heavy drinkers is very high. For example according to her research, 23% of all students under 21 years compared to 19% over the age of 21 are heavy drinkers. To Engs, R (1998), 33% of under age compared to 25% of authorized age are heavy drinkers. There has been a decline in consumption as well as vehicle crashes. At the same time unfortunately, there has been an increase in other social problems which are related to irresponsible drinking by college youth. In Engs, R (1998) research, from 1983 to 1988, about 47% of students reported feeling unwell after drinking heavily. This skyrocketed to over 51% after the law was changed forbidding drinking after 21 years. According to her, other significant increases were evident in other variables class disruptions after drinking which increased from 10% to 13%. Missing class because of hangover also increased from 27% to 29%. Grades came down tumbling because of drinking as well as fighting after drinking which increased from 12% to 17%. All in all, these behaviors are traits of irresponsible and heavy drinking. To Engs, R (1998), this increase in irresponsible drinking behavior has been occasioned by hidden drinking outside supervision mainly in student rooms in which individuals come together and due to lack of knowledge, they indulge in irresponsible drinking behaviors. In this regard and based on the fact that the current prohibition laws are not working, the need for an alternative way from those that have been used by others and by more cultures need to be tried (Engs, R 1998). To the Italians, the Greeks, the Chinese and the Jews, alcohol is neither seen as a poison nor an omen. To them, there is little social pressure to drink as they don’t tolerate irresponsible drinking behavior. According to them, young people should learn at home and from their parents as well as from other adults, how to handle alcohol in a responsible mature manner. In this case, since the 21 year old drinking legal age law is not working but counterproductive, it clearly signal something as a nation to change the current prohibition law. In other words, the youths should be taught responsible drinking behaviours since many have chosen to take alcoholic beverages at early ages. According to Engs, R (1998), the age within which one should be allowed to drink should be made below, 21 may be 18 or 19. To the military personnel the same should apply. As Engs, R (1998) puts it, if a person can protect his/her mother country from both internal and external aggression, then he/she should be given the right to drink. Otherwise how do you qualify to represent your country if you’re not eligible to do some of these things. It is suggested that, due to the nature of their working environment; registering dead bodies (finger printing dead bodies as it is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan), transferring bodies of colleagues from war zones, seeing horrible life picture of dead insurgents, receiving amputated bodies of fellow soldiers and of civilians e.t.c, then they should be allowed to consume some alcohol irrespective of their age to settle their minds to be able to go on with their chores effectively. The youths in America should be allowed to vote. This is so because, at the height of the Vietnam War, many Americans aged 18 year old and who were soldiers were send to fight and to die for their beloved country although they were not al all allowed to vote (Richmond, W 2004). According to him, this constitutes to double standards since as at now, the youths are subjected to adult penalties despite the fact that, they lack the right to choose their leaders; the leaders they feel are good for them. In some American states, the requirement for transferring an accused youth under the maximum age of jurisdiction into any criminal has been changed a lot. According to Richmond, W (2004), this is a twisted kind of since the youths are judged as mature, responsible adults if they get involved in criminal activities like commit murder. When it comes to deciding the destiny o the country, they are called brainless kids. Leaders who are not chosen by the youths today can be send to war tomorrow by the same leaders who they do not have the right to choose. Like other Americans, young Americans pay a lot of taxes. As Richmond, W (2004) puts it, the youths pay an estimated $8.7 Billion dollars in sales taxes. This does not include the many millions of taxes on income. According to the Internal Revenue Source (IRS 2007), many youths may not even have permanent jobs but they have to pay taxes on the money they earn from whatever source. Further, IRS (2007), 81% of high school students work before graduation. IRS (2007), they pay taxes to the state, the local as well as the federal governments and yet they have no any say on how much is to be taken form their earnings; taxation without representation. Young people are also affected by each and every other law that all other Americans live under. As lawful citizens of the society, each and every action/inaction taken by lawmakers and policy makers affects the youth directly. This happens despite the fact that, they have no say in any matter. According to Richmond, W (2004), a testimony by a 14-year-old stunned many by her assertions. She said that, at 16 years, one is old enough to take water which has been polluted by industries that are regulated by the state, old enough to inhale air dirtified by garbage burners which were build and commissioned by the government. She completed by saying that, then at 16, one is old enough to play an important part in making them better. On the same note, since politicians represent the various constituencies in the country and that, the young people are no constituency, politicians careless about the needs as well as the wishes of the youth since the later have no ability and will to vote for or against them. Lowering the voting age will be a just idea as it will give the politicians a good reason to respect the desires of young generation as they will fear the possibility of being voted out by the youths who form the largest part of the population. Without the right to vote, the youths feel left out from politics and by politicians, thus, lowering the voting age will bring them on board. To Richmond, W (2004), the words spoken in 1971 in support of lowering the voting age are true even now. Voting-age limitation tends to drive the youth into searching for an alternative means which are some times violent in order to express their frustrations. According to many researchers, lowering the voting age among the youths probably to 16 years will provide them with a direct and a constructive channel for highlighting their views as well as giving them a responsible chore in the future; they are termed as future leaders. Many have argued that, there is no enough reason not to vote among the youths and that is where they are coming to; it is a matter of time before they grow up. Also, voters vote according to their individual situations, when these situations change often, their voting habits also change. Further, the needs of a 15 year old are quite different from those of a 25. Currently, the right to vote is given at the worst moment in ones life; 18. At 18, many youth often leave their homesteads and communities where they have lived for most their lives, either to go to college or to move away in search of work/jobs. At this moment, they are supposed to cast their votes when they are away and have new communities which they are unfamiliar with. In such instances, they don’t vote; a process that discourages many new voters. Due to this, lowering the voting age to probably 16 will give the right to vote to people (youths) who have roots in the communities. This is so because, the youths have an appreciation for local issues and will have more concern about voting other than waiting for just two years. At the same time, youths have good surroundings namely; school, parents and friends who make them feel connected to their communities; these are factors which will increase their will and need to vote. Again, lower the voting age and youth will vote change which they can belief and which they see. Lowering the voting age will make the voter turnout to be high. This is so because, when a habit starts early in life, it is more likely that the habit or interest will continue throughout life (Richmond, W 2004). If youths are taught how to vote and they begin voting earlier, the habit gets used and they are more likely to stick with it through life thus the turn high turn out. According to Richmond, W (2004), this will not only increase voter turn out for the young voter, the turnout for the parents will also increase as well. Richmond’s assertions have been supported by a survey in 1996 by Bruce Merrill who found out that, there is a strong increase in turnout in places with kids voting than places where the kids were not voting. As per the report, youths increased the interest in voting in their respective families. Richmond, W (2004) says that, parents are more likely to discuss politics with their young off springs, to him thus, an estimated 800,000 parents are likely to vote because of this. As many argue, lowering the voting age will definitely strengthen democracy for the benefit of whole nation which is aspired. There has been an argument that youths should not be allowed to vote because they lack the credibility to make informed as well as intelligent decisions. The fact is that, intelligence as well as maturity is not a good basis to be used when granting the right to. If this was the case then, all eligible voters need to pass a test before casting their vote. Under the current voting rights, tests meant for literacy, lack of education or information about election issues is not a basis for denying one the right to vote, they are suspect and should be banned under federal law. Furthermore, according to the federal government, any person; even a youth who has not been declared as incompetent and has gone through the education system up to the sixth grade in any state, then he/she has sufficient literacy, can comprehend and has the required intelligence to vote in any election. The question is, if a Sixth grade education has adequate knowledge to vote, then how an older youth can be denied the right to vote given that the latter can vote as per the law. With the voting age at 16, then there is an opportunity for new voters to be educated voters. This is so because, schools will schedule for a civics class at 16 that will introduce the issues and prepare new voters. Due to this, these young voters will be better prepared to vote than even their elders who have been voting since time immemorial and will do the right thing as they have the morale and the stake; future. The right to vote at lower age will have a direct positive effect in youth’s character and in their sense of responsibility (Barnes 2004). This is clearly seen in their way of volunteering; they have high levels of volunteering and community service while they are turned off by politics. Also, responsibility comes with rights, and thus, if the youths are given the right to vote early in life, then they grow up as responsible people who can be trusted with the leadership of this country. In conclusion, some amendments should be made to meet the changing world. Reference Barnes (2004). Getting Hold of Terror Gangs: What should be done to their Masters. Nairobi: General Printers. Engs, R (1998).Why the drinking age should be lowered: An opinion based upon research. Retrieved February 21, 2008 from, http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html Giraldi, P (February, 20 2008). The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html IRS (2007). Youths’ Contribution towards the Economy. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.irs.gov/ Richmond, W (2004). Reasons to Lower the Voting Age. Ohio: Akron University Press. Read More