Politics, News & Issues >
Government & Policies
RSS FeedIs the Constitution always right?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 42% | 65 votes | Total: 154 votes | |
| No | 58% | 89 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWell I have to say that this question is rather specious and absurd. Putting aside the Locke and Hobbs argument on the social contract, the constitution has to be right. Unless someone makes an argument as to the definition of what is a constitution. Merriam-Webster dictionary in part defines it as: "the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it; and/or a written instrument containing the fundamental rules of a political or social organization."
Thus if the constitution is the "basic principles...that determine the powers and duties of the government... the Constitution has to always be right. The real question is what does it mean. There are two basic schools of thought as to what the constitution means. First, is the that the constitution is a living breathing document. It can and must adapt to the times and needs of the country as determined in large part by the judiciary. The second view is that which has been labeled as strict constructionist. Simply stated the constitution says what it means and means what it says.
The problem of course and reason why Supreme Court nominations have become so vexatious is the fight between these two camps. There are numerous cases decided by the Court over the years that show this great divide. The most likely suspect in this area is the matter of abortion. Roe v. Wade, established the trimester test. In the first trimester the State has no specific interest in the life of the unborn child or fetus, depending on your view point. In the second trimester the State has limited interest and the in the third trimester the interest of the State is very strong. One can argue what their personal beliefs are in this area bases on a number of issues and beliefs. However, the academic debate, so to speak, is the basis of the decision. Relying on a prior case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court established a judicial rule or interpretation that their is a basic rule of privacy embedded in the Constitution. This view is of the living breathing Constitution sect. The strict constructionist view is that decision is hogwash. There is no specific clause in the Constitution that says that citizens have a right to privacy. The only rights in that vein that are covered by the Constitution is that all citizens have a right to unreasonable search and seizure.
Notwithstanding the above example, the arguments go something like this. Living-breathing say the Constitution has to adapt to the times when it was written in 1787 the founder could not imagine the issues that would face society over 200 years from then. No TV, no war on terror, nuclear war, AIDS etc. Thus you can not apply 18th century principles to the present day without taking into account the reality and issues of the day. The strict constructionist viewpoint is got to stick to the what the Constitution is and says. The principles that were valid then still prevail. In addition, to the extent that the Constitution has become obsolete the founders provided a mechanism for the constitution to meet the needs of the present day, that being the amendment process.
Is the Constitution always right, indeed it is, however, it is a matter of who is saying what it means that is the real question.
Learn more about this author, Bud McBride.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
No
Ben Franklin, when writing to Jean-Baptiste Leroy in 1789, wrote "Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes." We've probably have all heard the second part of that statement though many of probably did not know that he was talking about our Constitution at the time. Still, he seemed to think that the Constitution was pretty strong based on that statement. Of course, that's not the only statement that he made on the subject:
"I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
Even Franklin didn't think it was perfect.
On the plus side, the Constitution is a living document. It can (and has been) changed, amended through a very difficult process. At times, that process may be too difficult since it seems as if it hasn't kept up with the times.
One simple example:
In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, the Constitution talks about recess appointments.
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session."
When the Constitution was written, recesses in Congress would last from 6 to 9 months. After all, travel in the late 18th century was not speedy by today's standards unless you happen to be Amish. It is easy to see why this passage was needed. Sometimes an appointment is needed well before the Senate could come back for the recess.
Today, this power is used to appoint people to office that would be unlikely to be confirmed by the Senate. It is used as a loophole only. A good recent example would be in 2005, when President Bush appointed the controversal John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. This wasn't a move because the Senate was going to be not in session for awhile. The Senate was on a 10 day recess. It was used only to escape the "advise and consent" power of the Senate.
In the same way, this power has been used to make judicial appointments when misgivings from the Senate are known about an appointee by several administrations.
Other issues of the Constitution have been amended. Black and indians are not counted as three-fifths of a person as the original Constitution stated for example.
Also, it should be noted that the Constitution is often subject to interpretation (particularly the Amendments). The Supreme Court looks at cases based on the Constitution. However, it is rare that all of the Justices agree on a decision. This isn't because they don't understand the Constitution but they tend to view the document from the standpoint of their ideologies and backgrounds. This tells me that the Constitution is too loosely worded in some ways, making one passage seem to mean something entirely different when viewed in a different way. (To be fair, there are issues of precedent of other laws that come into play on these decisions. Even so, it seems that the interpretation of some of the Constitution split in opposite direction depending on who is making the decision.)
The Constitution is not always right and it isn't perfect. However, throughout the years, it has gotten better and remains a solid foundation for our country's laws.
Learn more about this author, Steven Laskoske.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should members of Congress be able to use their campaign funds and offices to benefit family members?
- Should the government fund needle exchange programs?
- Should smoking be allowed in public places?
- Classification of records: Do you think too much information is classified?
- Should private citizens and reporters who have unauthorized possession of classified information be allowed to publish it?
- Should Congress end the practice of pork barrel earmarking?
