Statement–Assumption — “With today’s calls to revise the Constitution, we must ask whether the Constitution has failed us, or we have failed the Constitution.” Assumptions: I. Merely revising the Constitution will not help unless people are willing to abide by it. II. Governance and/or compliance are not functioning as they should.

Introduction / Context:
The statement contrasts structural change (constitutional revision) with behavioral/institutional failure (citizens and leaders not living up to it). It invites self-scrutiny before amending the text.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Calls for revision exist, implying dissatisfaction.
• Outcomes depend on compliance and governance, not only on written provisions.

Concept / Approach:
For the caution to be meaningful, two premises are required: (I) that revision is insufficient without obedience and spirit-of-law adherence; (II) that something is indeed amiss (governance/compliance), hence the question “who failed whom?” Both premises are necessary to motivate reflection over mere textual tinkering.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is implicit: otherwise, revision would be the obvious cure without debate.2) II is implicit: without acknowledging problems, the dilemma would be pointless.

Verification / Alternative check:
Institutional performance rests on design and adherence; many reforms fail when norms lag.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one premise undercuts the argument’s balance; “neither” contradicts the explicit dilemma.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming text changes alone can substitute for institutional will.

Final Answer:
if both I and II is implicit.