The American identity was based on ideas like the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Reflecting the Americans’ views on their escape from oppression, anti-federalist ideals were also present such as having a weak central government, giving more power to states, and having more individual freedoms. These principles are seen in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), but has the time come to rethink how we interpret these over-230-year-old laws?
The Second Amendment, or the right to bear arms, is one of the most disputed rights, the Second Amendment stating, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Currently, this law is interpreted to give the right to purchase guns and other weapons to the citizens. However, should human lives be sacrificed for this? Between 2021 and 2022, there were 327 school shootings, with 188 of them resulting in injuries. Of course, background checks are often present in the sale of these guns, but the simple truth is that none of these school shootings should have happened.
The leaders of early America drafted the Second Amendment so if the government oppressed its citizens, people could arm themselves against it. Now, most citizens can vote: a stark contrast to the early eighteenth century in which only wealthy white landowners could vote, and only then via electors. Representatives are directly elected; thus, the probability of having an abusive government has significantly declined. Even in the highly unlikely situation in which such a government emerges, the amendment could be revised to allow for states to store certain weapons to arm their citizens with in the case of such an emergency. There is simply no longer a need to arm each and every person.
A similar dilemma is presented in the First Amendment, which decrees, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Freedom of speech was crucial for things like the abolitionist and suffrage movements: none of these developments would have been possible otherwise. However, our modern America presents new issues with this widely-accepted freedom. On January 6, 2021, the capitol building was overrun with a mob incited by the words of former President Trump. Shockingly enough, his words are defended under the first amendment. According to Special Counsel Jack Smith, “Trump had a First Amendment right ‘to speak publicly about the election and to claim, even falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.’” It isn’t what he said, it is Trump’s attempt to obstruct the peaceful transition of power that is under scrutiny. Why should our nation protect blatant lies such as these? As with the Second Amendment, there is no question that something needs to change: the only question is what.
The path to rectifying the First Amendment is much trickier. Deciding upon which sort of statements should be protected is no doubt difficult. That being said, when the truth itself becomes a political issue, there needs to be a reliable source for the people. Though this seems hard to achieve, such a policy has been made before. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were governmental briefings coming from Dr. Fauci—an expert not affiliated with either political party. These briefings should not be confined to tackling the COVID-19 pandemic; they should be extended to combating misinformation plaguing this country. If a government committee accountable under the law could be formed to brief the public on major events, then people would have the truth more easily accessible. It would effectively weaken the authority of political speeches that purposefully pervert the truth, and decrease the likelihood of another misinformed insurrection.
Ultimately, America is a country of hope, liberty, and freedom. But by relying on old philosophies, it is becoming the very thing the founding fathers sought to break free of.