Critique of the U.S. Constitution: Perspectives from Toobin and Brutus
Introduction
It is possible to find the critique of the Constitution in various sources, and they typically focus on the issues that are the priority for the particular political group. The article by Toobin, “Our Broken Constitution,” published in 2013, and the Anti-Federalist essay by Brutus, written in 1787, discuss the same question using distinct argumentation. The historical context and the questions relevant to the particular period determine the evidence to support the critique. The connections between the articles published in different centuries are based on Americans’ dissatisfaction with how the Constitution guarantees equal rights to all citizens.
Discussion
Therefore, both texts by Toobin and Brutus focus on the same theme of the American Constitution and the existing social and political problems that make it ineffective. As stated in Toobin’s piece, the US government is ineffective because of the Constitution, which restricts the rights of the regional government and makes the system rigid (Toobin 1). The essay by Brutus explains that a Bill of Rights is necessary, and the Constitution is inadequate in the desire to protect the liberties of individuals as it does not cover the needs of all social groups (Brutus 1).
The following pieces cover the opinions of both contemporary and historical Democrats and Republicans, along with their perspectives on the Constitution. Both writers have discussed their opinions on the national law, contending that the founding document should be revised regularly to consider modern living conditions and the effects it might have on the generations to come (Brutus 1); (Toobin 1). Given that the Constitution of the United States is one of the oldest operational laws in the history of humanity, it is vital to discuss whether it needs to be updated (Toobin 1). This subject has repeatedly been contested over time, which is the claim that unites the articles by Brutus and Toobin.
At the same time, the contemporary view on the Constitution is more critical than the historical document. According to Toobin, the shortcomings of the system Americans currently have are a direct result of the Constitution’s inadequacy when it was drafted. However, Toobin never makes recommendations about how to improve the way the government functions.
Instead, he provides examples from various persons with different perspectives on the Constitution. He writes: “Sandy and his friends don’t like the structure of governance that the Constitution affords” (Toobin 1). They seek to modify the Constitution to improve the political situation and facilitate progress. Another author declares a different perspective on the issue: “My confidence in the Constitution is entire; it is complete; it is whole” (Brutus 1). The passage demonstrates how the Constitution supposes two different conceptions of government.
Conclusion
The connections between the article by Toobin and the essay by Brutus are the focus on the Constitution and its efficiency in ensuring equality for every person in the United States. The authors propose distinct ways of solving the situations when the Constitution shows less efficiency. According to one perspective, it is critical to simplify the national government’s operations, emphasizing impasse on essential agenda items like debt limit, migration questions, and gun regulation, among other matters. The opposing viewpoint contends that states should have the power to handle particular policy fields and that the national government is far too involved in the affairs of the regions. The choice of these arguments is determined by the critical questions for the authors’ contemporaries.
Works Cited
Brutus. (1787). “Brutus No. 1.” Teaching American History. Web.
Toobin, Jeffrey. “Our Broken Constitution.” The New Yorker. 2013. Web.