How do you interpret the US Constitution?

BidoofTheWise

The United States Constitution is one of the most fascinating documents I have read. This document, written over 220 years ago, has only gone through less then a few dozen amendments, and has continued to be the basis of the government here in the U.S. However, there are two main ideas on how to apply what was written then for today.
These ideas revolve around the belief that the U.S. Constitution is a living breathing document, and Strict Construction, which believes that the Constitution cannot be used to guess what the framers would have done today. In the words of Justice Scalia, the constitution is a "dead" document instead of a "living and breathing" one.
While saying that a constitution is living and breathing sounds nice, both sides have valid arguments. The majority of main political parties in the U.S. have had at least a large amount of their ideology based on these two theories.
Which do you believe in?
 
BidoofTheWise said:
These ideas revolve around Judicial activism, which is the belief that the U.S. Constitution is a living breathing document
Click to expand...
Uh, not really. Judicial activism is "when a judge makes a ruling I don't like", and gets thrown around almost every time a law gets struck down as unconstitutional.

Aside from that, that's quite a false dichotomy you've set up there.
 
The Constitution is dead in that the process of amending it makes it incredibly hard to change. For all intents and purposes, it's unchangeable.

However, it is also a document very open to interpretation, much like the Bible. In cases that go to the Supreme Court, the Constitution has one clause that would support it being constitutional and another that would make it unconstitutional. Supreme Court justices could easily argue one way or the other, and that is why the balance of power on the Supreme Court is so important. This is also why the selection of justices is so politicized.

Even on issues as simple as Gun Control, the constitution gives people the right to bear arms, but it also says the government should promote the general welfare. The Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, so it could prohibit the sale of guns across state boundaries. Essentially, the justices are allowed to have their (politicized) opinion on these matters, so the Constitution and its interpretation is pretty much a reflection of politics. Mind you, it lags behind the rest of the nation due to the fact that justices have life terms...
 
Alright, I do admit that I used judicial activism incorrectly, but the ideas still exist. Besides, just because there are two interpretations, does not mean that they only exist in the purest of forms. The GOP, if you look at their policies, can be BASED, not anchored, to strict construction. Sure, it is a dichotomy, but so is a liberal and conservative party. Both have core beliefs, but few people would say both are completely exclusive to each other, and have influences or shared beliefs.

One example of people saying the constitution is dead in processes outside of the amendments is abortion. Simply put, strict construction dictates that it is not in the constution, so Roe V. Wade was wrong in making it a federal issue, when it should belong to the states. Believers of a growing constitution believe that this issue needs to be looked at with the XIVth amendment, which could imply a right to privacy, which can then be used to decide that abortion should be allowed all states, as what happened in Roe V Wade
 
Actually, both Republicans and Democrats essentially scrap original intent when they allow for large organizations (including specifically businesses) as the first amendment didn't cover anything except political organizations. There's a court case that I'll find later that essentially banned a group of cordwainers from getting together and linking businesses under the conspiracy charge.

So, if we ignore original intent, then it just means that both sides have different interpretations of the US Constitution, rather then the old argument that one side is strict construction, and the other is not.
 
What's there to interpret? It's written in plain English.

The Constitution does not exist to be interpreted, it exists to be enforced.
 
I'm not American, and have not read the entire US Constitution, but in response to McGrue: That it is written in plain English is why it has be "interpreted", why the corner cases get debated. Typical legal language is intended to minimise interpretation and cover all possible cases (it invariably fails to completely eliminate ambiguity) - the Constitution is not written in such language.

To take an obvious example, the Eight Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Click to expand...
What is "excessive" is not defined - it is a matter for the courts to interpret. The same goes for "cruel and unusual", and for that matter I wouldn't be surprised if there's been court cases where one party tried to claim an action was not "punishment" or the taking of money not a "fine".
 
Phantom_IV said:
The Constitution is dead in that the process of amending it makes it incredibly hard to change. For all intensive purposes, it's unchangeable.
Click to expand...
That's the general idea, yes. It is supposed to be hard to change so that the people do not change it rashly. The whole point of the electoral college? People are generally stupid about politics. (The textbook for my class didn't say that exactly - but the meaning was clear.)

However, it is also a document very open to interpretation, much like the Bible. In cases that go to the Supreme Court, the Constitution has one clause that would support it being constitutional and another that would make it unconstitutional. Supreme Court justices could easily argue one way or the other, and that is why the balance of power on the Supreme Court is so important. This is also why the selection of justices is so politicized.

Even on issues as simple as Gun Control, the constitution gives people the right to bear arms, but it also says the government should promote the general welfare. The Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, so it could prohibit the sale of guns across state boundaries. Essentially, the justices are allowed to have their (politicized) opinion on these matters, so the Constitution and its interpretation is pretty much a reflection of politics. Mind you, it lags behind the rest of the nation due to the fact that justices have life terms...
Click to expand...
Interpretation of the Constitution is necessary. If opinions remained the same, if cases were never overturned, our society would be in rictor mortus, or close to there. Anyway, the Constitution was meant to be interpreted to the needs of the times. Hence the Elastic Clause and the ability to amend it, albiet with difficulty.
 
Aura Guardian said:
Anyway, the Constitution was meant to be interpreted to the needs of the times. Hence the Elastic Clause and the ability to amend it, albiet with difficulty.
Click to expand...

I slightly disagree with that statement. I actually do not believe that the Constitution should be regarded to as a flexible document. Sure, the Necessary and Proper clause does allow there to be flexibility, but I also see certain things that if interpreted for today would be unconstitutional. For example, some people look at the second amendment saying that it states that the right to arms is for the maintenance of a militia as well as the security of this nation. Well, today, militias do not exist; the National Guard does. Continuing with this belief, you could say that then since "militias" today are not made of ordinary citizens, then the right to bear arms really only applies to the National Guard, police, and the likes. People like me disagree, saying that this is trying to pull too much meaning out of the constitution to twist it to your agenda, and that is should only be read that people have the right to own arms.

It really is how much you want to apply that Elastic Clause.

Maybe that should have been my original question . . . :nerd:
 
"Judicial Activism" is any decision that invokes the Interstate Commerce Clause and/or the General Welfare Clause as its basis. Especially if a more specific clause must be ignored for the decision to hold any weight.

The Constitution is a living, breathing document: It has an Amendment process.

I believe in an originalist Constitution. If you want social guarantees try your hand in Russia, their constitution has loads of those. President Obama has stated he doesn't like the Constitution because he feels it is a bill of negative rights (what the government cannot do to you, rather than what they must do for you). He misses the point that this was the Founder's original intent. They wrote the Constitution precisely because they were oppressed by a centralized government that claimed it was the granter or rights rather that a protector of them.

No social guarantees. Minimal federal encroachment on state sovereignty. If the federal government fails to do its duties the states are to use their own devices. The Tenth Amendment is a sufficient basis for this.

Though I must say most newer amendments are of inferior quality to the original ten. The Sixteenth Amendment is the only reason a national income tax isn't grossly unconstitutional. It never should have been signed and would, in a sane society, be repealed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
I will concur that from I understand of it, the "Commerce Clause" has been pushed to cover things that were almost certainly never originally intended, justifying the extension of scope by economic theory that may not be very relevant to the actual case in question. And IIRC a ridiculous amount of what the Federal Government does relies upon the commerce clause.
 
I pretty much interpret it as "don't be a dick unless it's time to be a dick" and in that sense it still doesn't work out that great
 
Anarchist Lysander Spooner said something like, "The Constitution either provided for the situation in which we find ourselves, or it was powerless to stop it. Either way, it is unfit to rule us." The government we have now won't ever be restrained by a piece of paper. The Civil War amendments, especially the 14th, gutted the original Constitution. Before that was Marbury v. Madison. Now we have the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments, which do extraordinary damage to the old balance between the nat'l government and the states. And, of course, there's...the Federal Reserve. :(
 
Marbury V. Madison was a case that helped establish the role of the Judicial branch. How could that court case upset the balance of power when it reaffirmed the check the scotus has over congress? As for the 17th amendment, that gave more power to the people. If you are saying that the Constitution has been unsuccessful in stopping the growth of the government, then why you give support of this with an amendment that gives more power to the people instead of having the government select senators?
 
We tend to throw around the Constitution alot when we talk about injustice. But truth be told, while there are some very important things in the bill of rights that should be preserved, if you want to talk about rights and justice you should look no further than the Declaration of Independence. When a law runs aground the concepts of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, that's a law that I find to be wrong.
 
I think the Constitution is a perfect outline for the basis of law because of how crystal clear and unambiguous. For example, I know that my right to bear arms guarantees me the ability to go out hunting, kill a bear, cut off its two front arms, and hang them on my wall to my liking.
 
I used it to get my message across. The Constitution is no longer valid in my opinion. I hate that we keep things just for ritualistic sake. It obviously addresses issues that no longer apply as well as fails to address others that do. If we took a strict interpretation of the Constitution we'd be fucked.
 
Here's your 'average American' opinion, but it doesn't matter all too much for me. I don't trust anyone with more power than I do to let me interperet the Constitution any other way than how this person in power wants me to. I feel as though I am as free as I am allowed to be, give or take a few things that pass unnoticed. When these allowances aren't enough for me, win or lose I'll fight for more.America's government is a mess. It's all these guys who want more money, or more power to obtain more money. Same goes for a lot of major companies. They're not ordinary citizens and don't care about the rest of the country. These people should be ruling but themselves, as the common man is part of a different America.
 
As a non-American I've got to say..

You guys really need to look into the context in which the constitution was written, stuff like right to bear arms had a somewhat different level of relevance when the sheriff (let alone any significant law enforcement) was a day or more away and there was a noteworthy bandit population..
 
Hah, I would wipe my ass with the constitution. Its just another piece of paper restricting what I can and do. Im gonna go out there and live off the land, learn to be one with nature, and not be a target of emulative society.
 
ShinyHitmonlee said:
Hah, I would wipe my ass with the constitution. Its just another piece of paper restricting what I can and do. Im gonna go out there and live off the land, learn to be one with nature, and not be a target of emulative society.
Click to expand...

The first step is "stop using the internet".
 
Trax said:
As a non-American I've got to say..

You guys really need to look into the context in which the constitution was written, stuff like right to bear arms had a somewhat different level of relevance when the sheriff (let alone any significant law enforcement) was a day or more away and there was a noteworthy bandit population..
Click to expand...

Actually some of us do look into the context in which it was written. The first step is realizing that it was not written anywhere near the place or during the period we like to call "The Wild West".

Anytime someone wants to go against the constitution, Republican or Democrat, they always say "But I wonder what they really were thinking". The Constitution isn't some holy book that's our only connection to the intent of its writers. They were educated men. They wrote about the things that would be important in the Constitution. You read someone talk about the right to bear arms, and they are talking about the right to have weaponry in case the government turns back into a monarchy. Maybe if we spent more time learning about the founding fathers in school and not jacking off to the idea of them our politicians wouldn't be so fucking stupid.

Mind you, some of the writers of the constitution didn't even want a bill of rights. So no one ever agrees about everything, but I specifically side with Thomas Jefferson in his views on the constitution relevant matters.

Also, +1 to Surgo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top