The American Constitution has been the Band-Aids and duct tape of the American government for centuries. The Constitution’s 27 Amendments are reforms designed to maintain the United States’ infamous title: “Land of the Free.”

Many politicians, such as our current president, Donald Trump, or former president Roosevelt, have attempted to alter or entirely change the Constitution. This hankering for modification is often due to the age of amendments and consequent potential to be obsolete. Especially given that the Bill of Rights, containing the first 10 amendments, was written nearly 300 years ago, the Constitution’s ability to be modified has been heavily contested: on one hand, amendments may be outdated; on the other, they have, to some extent, successfully created equity and stability for centuries.

Currently, the Constitution can be amended, as per the Fifth Amendment; however, it requires a lengthy and complex process to prevent corruption and alterations to the country’s foundations. The Tenth Amendment allows changes that are not outlined in the Constitution to be handled by individual states. That ability helps preserve the document's long-standing life. New national changes to the document must be approved by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as by legislators from three-fourths of the states.

Most frequently, the amendments sought to change are centered on immigration or gun reform. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all people born in the US, offering them legal protection. Before its enactment, African Americans were not considered US citizens. The implementation of the 14th Amendment created equity within what defines an “American,” regardless of race and ethnicity. The Constitution was designed to protect Americans, but when the concept of an American is under debate, it prompts us to question whether the Constitution is truly doing the most it can to protect the people.

Gun control, specifically the Second Amendment, is also an increasingly controversial issue. The Second Amendment outlines the ability to “keep and bear” firearms. Many politicians are against the current movement to restrict gun accessibility provided by this amendment. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that across the country, mass shootings have become more and more of an issue.

Every day in America, around 327 people are shot, and 117 of those are fatal. The rate of homicide was already at 13.7 per 100,000 people in the United States in 2020, versus countries with stricter gun laws. China, for example, had a homicide rate of .5 per 100,000 due to much more stringent gun laws in that same year. Alexander Hamilton said, “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” But it is also arguable that not all Americans are peaceable citizens. This is a clear example of a complex situation where circumstances have evolved, making modernization a possible necessity.

Supporters of a simple amendment process cite the age of the paper and the necessity for efficiency when modernizing it. After all, the Constitution was written in 1787 – nearly 300 years ago. Advancements of society over that time have created diverse issues that even the founding fathers couldn’t have predicted. We have school scootings, artificial intelligence, and nuclear power. The United States in the 1700s undeniably faced different challenges and had other priorities. That realization is crucial to consider when discussing potential changes in the document.

The current process is undoubtedly long. It can take up to several years, and therefore is not always a time-effective solution.

To further explore this debate, AHS Social Studies teacher Tameira Wilson weighs in. Wilson has a passion for the Constitution and teaches about it and its effects daily. Wilson commented, saying,

“It's frustrating that it [the amendment process] can be so slow, especially if we think there's a critical issue. However, I don't know that I trust Americans to think about the well-being and best interests of all of us,” Wilson said.

Patience is difficult when pressing issues become apparent, but it is a necessary sacrifice to ensure that proper action is taken. By dragging on the process, solutions are well thought out.

“Having a lengthy process means that you have to be really committed to those ideas, and it's not things that we can just change on a whim,” Wilson said.

The constitution was not designed to remain in the editing stage indefinitely; thus, a proper time for deliberation and discussion is crucial to ensure a lasting solution, as the constitution is intended to function.

Who is appropriate to make those changes, if the Constitution should be easily amended? If the executive branch holds that power, significant changes in democracy could transpire.

Wilson agrees, stressing that power must be distributed among the legislative branch, as the judicial and executive branches consist of too few people to handle such significant amounts of power. Constitutional control is best vested in a large group of people to ensure that ethical and unbiased changes can be made. Thus, the president is unable to issue orders that do not comply with the Constitution's amendments.

Regardless of the past, the Constitution was created to hold our country together far into the future. Regardless of which political party is in charge, the Constitution serves as a guide to maintain our country's democracy. To be “The Land of the Free”, the United States must be home to those brave enough to uphold the document that makes us America. Whether that is achieved by changing the constitution or maintaining the current amendments, only time will tell.