You have been asked to rewrite one of the amendments to the Constitution. Which amendment would you choose and why? What changes would you make in rewriting this amendment? How would this affect the day-to-day lives of U.S. citizens and residents today?
You may use any of the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (except NOT the 2nd amendment which will be addressed in a future discussion). You will find them in the back of your textbook or on the All Amendments to the United States Constitution website. After you read them, think about how they work in real life and how perhaps one of them could be changed by being made more specific or detailed, or by being less restrictive.
Sample Solution
The Constitution has too many flaws to patch it up with a few amendments here and there. It is thoroughly unfit for a nation of 330 million, in 50 unequal states with 21st-century problems, values and ideals. Therefore, we should introduce one Final Amendment to terminate the Constitution and draw up a new and better Constitution, with an expiration date of 50 years. The new Constitution should be an academic endeavor by a body of 300 or so of the best minds in political science, law, history, sociology, economics and philosophy, and must exclude politicians. It should draw upon the history of democracy, not just in the United States but around the world. We must recognize that the existing 50 states are completely nonsensical on multiple levels and contribute to today’s polarization.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war theory because of its normativity.
Jus post bellum
Finally, jus post bellum suggests that the actions we should take after a war (Frowe (2010), Page 208).
Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, provides a harsher approach, punishing the enemy both economically and politically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last instance, however, the aim of war is to establish peace security, so whatever needs to be done can be morally justified, if it follows the rules of jus ad bellum.
In conclusion, just war theory is very contestable and can argue in different ways. However, the establishment of a just peace is crucial, making all war type situation to have different ways of approaching (Frowe (2010), Page 227). Nevertheless, the just war theory comprises of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it can be either morally controversial or justifiable depending on the proportionality of the circumstance. Therefore, there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war but only a theoretical guide to show how wars should be fought, showing normativity in its account, which answers the question to what a just war theory is.