The US constitution is vague because there are issues that are not conclusive as per the constitution but are open to different interpretations. One of the most important advantages of a vague constitution is it eliminates automatic rigidity that is mostly witnessed in some democracies. It is also important in terms of flexibility, especially where a new generation can have input into the interpretation of the constitution ( Cobb, 2019) . Without this, the constitution's faults would be propagated and enacted until there is a constitutional amendment, which might not come soon enough. On the other hand, however, a vague constitution is disadvantageous because it brings up issues with due process. This would result in an imbalance between the laws of the land and the rights the different individuals are entitled to. The other disadvantage is lack of explicit standards leads to different interpretations of the law and enforcement by different officials. This could result in discrimination and unlawful convictions. Lastly, a vague constitution could impair the implementation of the first amendment of the US constitution.
The first amendment of the US constitution is vague because there have been several instances in which it has created situations where laws are invalidated because of principles that are espoused in overbreadth doctrine. There have been several problems related to the vagueness of the first amendment of the US constitution. For example, in the United States v. Alvarez , Stolen Valor Act was ruled to be unconstitutional because it violated the first amendment of the US constitution. It was argued that where freedom of speech is concerned, there were cases that protection of this freedom is necessary, even if the person is lying. There are other examples, such as the United States v. Stevens (2010), where there were significant arguments whether some categories of speech should fall under the unprotected category (Alexander, 2010). This is problematic because the first amendment should not be vulnerable to different interpretations in some cases. This could lead to obstruction of justice to some individuals who might be faced with criminal cases that might require the interpretation of the first amendment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Alexander, L. (2010). There is No First Amendment Overbreadth (but There are Vague First Amendment Doctrines); Prior Restraints aren't Prior; and as Applied Challenges Seek Judicial Statutory Amendments. Const. Comment. , 27 , 439.
Cobb, W. N. W. (2019). Political Science Today . CQ Press.
