Question

How do you think the Constitution should be interpreted: strictly, so as to protect the rights of the states to decide controversial matters for themselves, or in an elastic manner, so as to be able to address modern problems? Make sure to explain why you believe the Constitution should be interpreted in that way. Avoid addressing and expressing your opinion on any one controversial decision in your answer.

Answer 1

@jim_thompson5910 Are you any good with this type of stuff?

Answer 2

What's your question exactly? Where are you stuck?

Answer 3

This whole question, it's worded a little too complicated for me. I'm not understanding it.

Answer 4

well they're just asking your opinion on how the constitution should be interpreted

Answer 5

what are your views on the constitution? how should it be interpreted?

Answer 6

I don't know what it means by things like "elastic manner."

Answer 7

it means flexible

Answer 8

Why do we need an interpretation when it was plainly written, easy to understand, and short?

Answer 9

Can you name me one thing that the federal government does?

Answer 10

Collect taxes?

Answer 11

Or establish trade agreements with foreign nations.

Answer 12

so that is something explicitly written in the constitution

`The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes`

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Answer 13

one moment

Answer 14

Alright.

Answer 15

ok how about this

The EPA (environmental protection agency) is one of the many agencies in the federal government. They ensure that the rivers, lakes, streams, etc aren't polluted and are cleaned up. They also try to keep the air clean as well. Is this agency mentioned in the constitution? No it is not

So the question is: should this agency be federally based? or state based?

Answer 16

Should the federal government be in charge? or should it be left to the states to deal with it?

Answer 17

I think the state should because it probably would get more attention that way.

Answer 18

@jim_thompson5910

Answer 19

consider this scenario: New York has a pollution problem, so they dump their chemicals in a river or stream that flows into the nearby state of New Jersey

Answer 20

So, are you saying that you think the federal government should be in charge because otherwise the states would fight over who should take care of it?

Answer 21

yes I think the states would fight over it big time. Sure they could come to an agreement, but overall I think there should be one cohesive plan to deal with pollution that applies to all states equally. Having standards for something like this is important

Answer 22

So, how exactly am I answering my question then?

Answer 23

There is no single right answer. This is an opinion piece. Express your opinion and do it in a logical clear way

Answer 24

I still don't know what to write. I agree with you on the state and federal government thing.

Answer 25

The question is asking if you think the federal gov should handle things not expressed in the constitution

Answer 26

Ohhh okay, so I should use that example in my answer?

Answer 27

sure if you want. There are other examples you can use too