The Supreme Court and the ConstitutionFollow

on Sat while I was in line to vote, someone was handing out a little book of The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution. Having nothing else to do, and having always meant to freshen up my history knowledge, I happily devoured the thing and then read it a few times more for good measure. And while I was reading some voice kept nagging in the back of my head about what has been going on in our govt, and what I was actually reading. You see, we have the Supreme Court, as well as people nationwide, who cleave to the conservative interpretation of the Constitution. And while I was fairly sure I knew what this meant I decided to look it up anyways and double check. And sure enough, the ideal between a conservative judicial philosophy is that in essence, the constitution should not be changed. And their basis for this idealism is that of Originalism, which means what they interpret the founding fathers meant, not what they wrote.

The flaw in this theory is that we can never know exactly what the founding fathers may have originally intended, only what they did write. And we can also look at the fact that the founding fathers would probably never in their wildest dreams have envisioned where we are today, or the world, for that matter. So for all intents and purposes, whatever they morally originally intended back then, does not necessarily reflect well upon our society now.

With that said I get to my actual reason for posting. So the things that nagged me like hell as I was readin gour history, was this particular section of the Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


So with all of the issues that are so heated, with all of the conservatives who decry that to change the constitution to provide equal opportunity to all men and women, gay marriage, R v. W, etc... why does this important piece of document, this one paragraph that spells it out clearly, go unnoticed? Whatever our forefathers were thinking when they wrote this, they knew that in order to have a strong and stable govt, you also needed to have a fluid one, that can go with the flow of social evolution, and continue to allow all men to live as our fore fathers dreamed of: equal and able to pursue life, liberty, and of course, happiness?


Thoughts?

Because it might change the status quo and the rich might not get richer and the poor might not remain quite so poor.

Simplistic maybe, but that's always seemed to be the root of the matter to me.

Not completely true. We believe that the constitution should be changed according to the rules set in the constitution, and not just because some people think it doesn't say what it says.

As to interpretation? The issue is that the interpretation shouldn't change. If 100 years ago a phrase meant one thing, it shouldn't today mean something else just because you want it to, or it's convenient for it to be interpreted that way. If you want the meaning changed, you should change the words (following the aforementioned procedure).



Sure. But it's not like yesterday a group of conservatives decided to guess what those words meant. There's a long history of interpreted meaning. Our position is that we shouldn't change that interpretation just because it's convenient.




That's a different aspect of the issue. There is interpretation (what the writers meant when they wrote the words), and extrapolation (how those words apply to the situation at hand). It's certainly valid to extrapolate the meaning of the words in the constitution in a new context. The problem is that many Liberals attempt to do this in ways that aren't relevant to the changed situation. Abortion is a good example. The abortion laws existed at the time the amendments used in the Roe v. Wade case were written. If the meaning of those amendments were intended to make abortion a right, they should have included them in the wording, or they should have been interpreted at the time to include a right to abortion. They didn't. Thus, it's incorrect to later presume that they did all along, but for some reason no-one over the previous century realized it.


IMO, it's incredibly dangerous to use that type of argument. By doing so, you can re-interpret pretty much anything to mean anything else. Up means down, left means right, right means wrong, etc...




Here's the thing though. Ask yourself a question: If the laws of the land are "fluid" and subject to interpretation, who does this benefit and who does it hurt? Those with power and wealth? Or those without those things?

I submit that fluid laws subject to re-interpretation will tend to be used by a government to oppress the people far more often than they'll be used to help protect the people. It's exactly the "firm" wording and interpretation of laws that prevents such abuse. And to give up that protect for the convenience of the cause of the moment just seems incredibly foolish.


You may not agree with what the words say or the current firm interpretation of those words, but it's better to know what the law says and where you stand under them than to be subject to ever changing interpretations. Because one day those in power may interpret them in ways that you don't like and you've removed any redress from that power. Right or wrong, the process of interpretation and change of our laws should be firm and solid. That's why conservatives view it that way. It's not about the specific laws, but the process of law that is most important. Because you can always fight to have the constitution amended. You can't fight against a change of interpretation once you've established that this can be done. Because once the words don't matter anymore, then you've lost your power as a citizen with a vote. You can vote to change the words, but if it's the interpretation that matters, then you have no real power or voice, do you?


But that's just my opinion as a Conservative. How about you?

People like to cherry pick their support.

Its very easy to link conservatism and christianity. Convince the people that they're values are threatened by liberal thinking and they've got them in their pocket. There is nothing altruistic about it at the upper echelons of power (with the odd exception of the true moron, ie: Palin, Bush), its merely a matter of pragmatism. They need some popular support or they can't get the seats in the house and senate that they need to promote their legislation.