| a Living Constitution? |
 |
 |
 |
| Feb 23, 2009 |
|
The belief that the US Constitution is a “living” document, whose interpretation must change with the times, has grown increasingly popular in the twentieth century. This essay will point out two of the dangerous flaws with the idea of this interpretation and demonstrate that the Constitution is not something whose meaning can be changed to fit the wants and demands of arbitrary judges.
The conception of the Constitution as a “living” document effectively takes power out of the hands of the electorate by making the Supreme Court into a perpetual Constitutional Convention. In the 1930s, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes succinctly summarized the idea of a “living” Constitution. He stated, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”[1] In contrast with the comments of Justice Hughes, the Declaration of Independence asserts that government derives all its powers from the consent of the governed. How can judges who are unelected by the governed decide to change or increase their own power? It is within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret the Constitution based on its original intent, not on the changing of time. It is of great importance for people of a Republic to realize that when they do not like a law, the way to change it is not to pretend that it is not a law, but to work within the existing law. The second problem with interpreting the Constitution, as a “living” document is that it undermines the idea of a written Supreme Law. If one holds to the belief in a “living” Constitution he has just implied that the Constitution is in fact no Constitution at all. Justice Scalia sharply criticized those who say the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as a "living” document inasmuch as a document that should change with the times. During a commencement speech at Marquette University in 1988, Justice Scalia told a large crowd, “The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.”[2] In Summary, the Constitution is not something whose meaning can be changed to fit the wants and demands of the judiciary judges with the changing of time, but as it pertains to its meaning, is the same yesterday, today, and forever.Brandon Huber [1] Ray Cooklis, The Constitution: a Living Document? Enquirer on the Web, 2004/09/12 http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/09/12/editorial_ed1a.html [2] Tom Kertscher, Scalia Slams 'Living' Document Philosophy, JS Online, 2001/3/13 http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp |
NanoBlog
| The Battle Never Ends |
Blog Posts
Our Mission
Change is a shallow word and will not make our lives any better without clear action being taken by our government in the policy that they enact. Our nation is at a pivotal point and time in its history and what policies we allow will determine whether our country continues as an example of freedom and economic success, or whether we will enter the long list of world powers that will rise and fall.
As we enter this crucial time one thing that will greatly help with ensuring our nations success is the understanding of key issues that we face today. The hope and desires of our hearts are that this site will provide you with simple, yet crucial, information that will better prepare you to understand what needs to be done for this great country to succeed.
Comments