Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing

It is important for a society to have clear and firm laws in place to govern its people. That said, life is not always cut and dry. Sometimes a matter that may appear to be within or beyond the boundaries of a legal code requires further examination of evidence before a determination on legality can be made. For that reason, laws should contain language that makes them flexible enough to apply to various circumstances, times, and places. This can be clearly articulated through closer examination of the U.S. Constitution, which is a legal doctrine, not a moral code. As a legal doctrine, much of what it permits and prohibits feels anachronistic today.
The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, was born as a direct consequence of the Revolutionary War. Fearful that supreme power could once more fall in the hands of an individual ruler, the Founding Fathers permitted the populace to keep guns in the event that a militia was required to contest omnipotence. Fast forward two hundred and fifty years, and the guns available to U.S. citizens today would look unrecognizable to those the Founding Fathers permitted. Semi-automatic guns, for example, pose serious threats to the population, as evident by the countless mass shootings executed with such weaponry that have taken place over the past few decades. Here lies an instant in which the Second Amendment ought to be reconsidered and adjusted to reflect today’s reality. Because the language of the Second Amendment is so vague regarding the weapons it permits, mass-scale killing machines are able to be legally obtained in most areas of the country.
Similarly, the concept of marriage as defined by the U.S. constitution is insufficient to accommodate many citizens in America today. The clause “between a man and a woman” may have been sufficient in the 1770s -- though, undoubtedly, it hindered gay rights -- but for today’s populace, it does not cut it. Social norms have changed greatly, and our conception of a romantic relationship is far broader than it was post-revolution. In this case, because the law is so specific -- likely because the Founders were not thinking seriously about the potentially gay or bisexual settlers among them -- it is incapable of providing just treatment to all citizens.
It is true that laws can be too accommodating. If extenuating circumstances are too broad, it can be difficult to prove civil claims beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the concept of “qualified immunity,” which stipulates that, unless a police officer commits a crime that has exact precedent, charges cannot be filed, is too broad and allows for too many miscarriages of justice. In this case, however, laws are formed retroactively to prevent repeated misuses of power by officers. This issue could be ameliorated to an extent if officer misconduct were judged by a pre-existing code of conduct.
Ultimately, laws need to be flexible enough to allow for change and reinterpretation, without being so broad that they cannot uphold justice. This form of governance can be accomplished by critically analyzing every case and regularly testing our governing documents to see if they are adequate for the current moment.