In the piece, “The United States Constitution: A Graphic Adaptation” written by Jonathan Hennessey and illustrated by Aaron McConnell, the illustrator employs different symbols to argue his point that the Constitution has become obsolete throughout time. The visual text lays the foundation of the argument of the text, while the writer, Hennessey, serves the purpose of eliminating any ambiguity that the image may have created. The text serves to inform those who oppose the idea that the Constitution does not apply to today’s world in hopes for those people to reconsider.

In this piece, a different perspective of the Constitution is provided that contrasts to the ordinary take on the document. For example, the eighth panel depicts six poorly dressed people all following one winged man in a robe carrying an hourglass. On the other side stand six white males, seemingly rich, fear in their eyes as they keep the American flag locked in a safe behind them. At the top of the panel is a line from the preamble of the Constitution, “Blessings of liberty for ourselves,” but the only visible words are, “for ourselves.” The visual text is directed toward the entire population, particularly the closed-minded who refuse to listen to the argument that this very text puts forth: parts of the Constitution may be obsolete due to the time gap, as well as the fact that it was only written by a certain kind of people. The written text compliments the argument of the visual text with quotes like, ‘At the time the very idea of ‘We the people’ applied only to white men” making the message that Hennessey and McConnell are trying to send more than clear. While it may not have been necessary to add due to the clarity of the visual text, McConnell and Hennessey were certainly not aiming toward ambiguity, thus making it a wise addition to function within the text.

The image was designed to show the greed that the collaborators believed the writers of the Constitution to possess, also to show the fear they would experience should their ideals be overruled. This is evident in the facial expressions of the white men, the flag being locked in a safe, and lastly the line of the Constitution where the only words visible are, “for ourselves.” The image argues that the writers of the Constitution had in mind a specific idea for America that benefited their own people more than people of other races and cultures. The America they had written on paper translated into reality, and that has been the law of the land ever since. In the image you see seemingly poor people of color standing behind a winged man holding an hourglass and a weapon, striking fear into the white men. The hourglass is symbolic of the changing times in modern America, where minorities now have a true voice, while the weapon is symbolic of the abolishment of the old ideals. The image is a metaphor for the current evolution of America straying away from the version of America that the writers of the Constitution had dreamt for themselves. Of course, the founding fathers have passed away, so they are not capable of caring about these changes, thus begging the question: who do the white men depicted in the image represent? The answer to this is where the audience, and purpose of this image is found; the white men represent Americans who remain entrenched in the past, and refuse to move forward with new ideals that better apply to our modern America. This image serves to persuade these Americans into reconsidering the view they have by employing guilt tactics. Hennessey and McConnell would not shame the writers of the Constitution for their greed, that would mean nothing because they aren’t present. Instead, they attempt to guilt those who share similar ideals, accusing them of being greedy for being a white male under a Constitution written by other white males. This discreet accusation is where emotion begins to play a role in the reader’s perspective; the reader could either succumb to the accusation and feel guilty, thus making them more susceptible to suggestion with regard to their point of view. The other possibility is that the reader realizes what they are being of accused of and become angry, thus becoming even more entrenched in their views, and more radical. Had this image been displayed in a different context, like a textbook, the audience could perceive it differently. Instead of seeing it as the start of an argument where the image is their opposition, they might view it in a more neutral fashion.

Overall the visual text effectively argued its points, leaving little room for ambiguity, but it also given the context it might be received more negatively than hoped. The problem with arguments such as this one is the emotional aspect, where people may take offense to certain oppositions. Whenever arguing anything political it is important to remain factual and refrain from putting certain tones that might trigger your opposition. The reason for this is because when certain tones are added, it becomes more of an emotional ordeal rather than a factual debate. With these emotional ordeals, no progress is made in the debate and instead both sides become more entrenched in their original views, and may even become more radical. If we want to move forward as a country, the answer is in open-minded, factual debates about the issues.