Denouncing Wrongful Interpretations of the Constitution

The American Revolution (1775-1783) was, in part, a result of the shared sentiments that the British were threatening the traditional rights of Americans regarding the rights to life, liberty, and property. The fight for liberty and preservation of these traditional rights ultimately evolved into a search fueled by the necessity for a government that incorporated the aspects of both popular sovereignty and political equality. Eventually, the overwhelming desire for popular participation and greater equality warranted the framers to seek a form of government that not only would incorporate the beliefs, wants, and opinions of the general public but also would prevent tyranny. As a result, 73 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where they transcribed the Constitution, which was ratified in 1787.

Although the delegates sensed the need for a stronger central government to reflect the interests of Americans, amongst other things, they were cautious of allotting too much authority to the national government because of the potential for a tyranny. After a tumultuous process, the Constitution was created with the sole purpose of representing the nation through a system with separation of powers and checks and balances requirements to prevent any tyrannical political action. This system ensured that no branch of the national government (legislative, judicial, executive) would be able to act independently.

As evidenced through the current political climate, the constitutional powers of the government are always changing. Therefore, it is illogical to think of the Constitution as anything but an underlying foundation for American politics. The Constitution is sometimes referred to as the “living Constitution”, which refers to the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the intent of the framers, which was to merely provide a fundamental structural factor that would continually influence American politics, rather than interpreted based off the literal meanings of what was written.

The Constitution, in its original form, was not written to include women, slavery, Native Americans, or any other minorities. In fact, the framers, after careful consideration and deliberation, opted to indirectly include the presence or rather existence of slavery in deciding to factor in “three-fifths of all other Persons” in the calculation of how many representatives each state could receive in the House of Representatives. If similar consideration were still given in regards to African-Americans, modern United States would be a nation of inequality. Additionally, issues concerning women equality, and more specifically women’s right to vote, have evolved since the formation of the Constitution. These changes in the United States’ political environment directly fortify the idea that the Constitution is not the end-all-be-all of the American Government. If in fact the Constitution should be interpreted as an end-all-be-all and be taken literally according to its text, debates regarding gun control and the freedom of speech, press and assembly would be moot points.

The delegates that constituted the framers were wealthy and well-educated men that inevitably due to their own personal biases constructed the Constitution with the fear concerning “the instability and economic chaos of the confederation as well as the rise of a democratic and equalitarian culture among the people.” It is implausible that a group of the most well educated men in America would have been naïve enough to assume consistency throughout time, especially with regards to politics and the environment, and thus constructed the Constitution to be a dynamic document aiding with adapting the basic premises for an ever-changing environment. Thomas Jefferson exclaims in the Declaration of Independence, “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 forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” It is the duty of the government to withhold its upstanding position as an entity that is empowered to represent its people to facilitate the adaptation, interpretation, or abolishment of any social contract, such as the Constitution.

Obviously, it is not a unanimous belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as a dynamic and change-worthy document. Therefore, to facilitate some level of peace and harmony within our nation it is critical to devolve the notion that it should be taken literally.

7 Responses to "Denouncing Wrongful Interpretations of the Constitution"

Margaret Castelli says:

September 14, 2017 at 3:04 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with your points that the Constitution should be analyzed as a living, changing document. If the Framers had wanted the Constitution to be taken literally and continually followed, they would not have written in the amendment process. The genius of the American democracy is its ability to change with the times, and I would like to believe this was an initial part of the framer’s plan.
However, even if it wasn’t, it is an essential part of the way our world functions today. Clearly, as recognized by Dr. McGowen in class on Thursday, even the Framers knew that slavery would have to eventually be abolished, and thus, theoretically, other acts of civil rights would follow. The growth of rights for minorities has been essential to the maturity of our country and world. This is progress, and having a governing document that prevents progress is absolutely illogical.
I also liked your point about the wiggle room clearly present in some of our current amendments, especially those relating to the right to bear arms, and free speech and press. It is obvious that even if some believe the Constitution is not a living document, these boundaries established so long ago must be questioned. There was no knowledge of computers, the internet, and more in the Framer’s time, and clearly, these are important issues to discuss. Legislation like the Patriot Act could infringe on free speech, but if we don’t see the Constitution as a living document, how can we possibly apply words written 230 to issues involving the telephones and the internet?
Lauren Toth says:

September 14, 2017 at 3:12 pm

Ever since government has been established there has been a constant discussion if it is a living document or should be taken how it is written. The first part of the argument is the “living constitution”. People who support this view point believe the document should be dynamic and change throughout the years. This side of the argument has been proven over the year by the amendments. Since the constitution was written, the united states amended it 27 times. As Lauren mentioned here, some amended have entirely changed what the founding father’s wrote. These include the amendments that abolish any form of slavery and one that allows women and African Americans to vote. When looking at these examples, there is a clear and concrete argument that the constitution adapts to different movements based on the times.

On the other side of the argument, we have the individuals who consider the constitutions as originalism (libertylawsite.org). If someone believes the constitution is an Originalism document, they believe the words of the document must be taken word for word to describe the way government should work today. Typically, individuals agree that the constitution is a moderate originalism document, such as we should not treat people as property. However, they do believe that the constitution is the end all when it comes to certain cases that reach the supreme court. As you may have heard before, some cases arrive at the court to either be determined constitutional or unconstitutional. This originalism approach in a sense proves its self as we have seen in cases such as Riley vs California. This case was to determine if it was constitutional for police to search a suspects phone without a warrant. The cases ended in a unanimous vote that it was unconstitutional to do so.

Both sides of the argument have their strengths and their weaknesses. We have seen through time the constitution change with the times and we have seen the words taken to prove a case is constitutional or unconstitutional. I personally believe it is the case that it is a dynamically changing originalism document. At some point, words written 200 years ago will need to be changed. However, the basic meaning and thoughts the founding fathers had will remain the same. Every citizen in this country should have the government protection when it comes to life and liberty and the constitutional ideas backs this. But as every great document, in order to stay relevant there must be change.

https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/supreme-court/milestone-cases-supreme-court-history

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/08/29/the-bases-for-originalism/
Brittney Morris says:

September 17, 2017 at 2:04 pm

Lauren, while I think your post is interesting and raises a lot of good points there are a few things I do not agree with. I do agree that Americans were fighting for rights that they were being deprived of, (“The Rights of Englishmen”). However, Americans were more frustrated that they could not vote for what they wanted and were forced to abide by laws that they had no say over. You refer to the “living constitution” as the interpretation how the framers intended, while some of your argument is correct, there are other parts that are I do not agree with. A “living constitution” can also be referred to as a “loose constitution”, which means that contemporary society should be taken into account when interpreting the constitution. In this sense, it acts as an animate being and can be adapted to fit the needs of the society. The idea of a “living constitution” is what allows us to include African Americans, women, and other minorities in politics today. I completely agree that the framers did purposely include text that was discriminatory toward minorities. Though our government has significantly evolved I would still say the rich are the ones with the power, just as the framers were. I will also raise the point, more so as a devils advocate, but also as something I have considered over the years. Is it really in Americas best interest for everyones vote to count equally? As we have discussed in class our education system in undeniably unequal. There are students who receive outstanding education from the age of 5, while other students graduate high school and can barely write a sentence. Can we really say that those groups are able to rationally make political decisions? I do not know if it is right to completely exclude them from the political process. However, I do think our education system needs fixed in order for those students to be politically informed and capable of rational decision making. If that is the case I cannot say it was wrong for only education rich men to create the constitution. They were the most informed and capable of creating a government that turned into the best democracy in the world.
Hannah Dunn says:

September 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

I think your point about the framers having the intelligence to assume their document would evolve beyond their time is very interesting. Whether or not the framers intended for the constitution to be a flexible document, I believe that some indisputable cultural and economic changes have occurred so that flexibility is the only option.

It is hard to predict what new technologies will be developed next week, let alone two hundred years from now. Today, the constitution is facing an ultimate opponent: the internet. Freedom of speech can be framed in entirely different terms today than it was in the late 18th century. Instead of publishing newspapers and pamphlets with progressive and controversial thoughts, we are tweeting our deepest thoughts and sharing pictures, locations, and other personal information.

A man was recently arrested for making threats against Donald Trump on his personal Facebook, a statement which in an earlier age would have gone undetected. The government can track our movements and cell phone conversations without batting an eye. Like environmental changes, these technological developments bring the constitution’s flexibility into question. How much liberty and free speech should American citizens be afforded?

Because our society has advanced so far beyond where it was when the framers were envisioning the United States’ future, I agree with you that the only way our government can be effective is to interpret the Constitution flexibly.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2011/12/15/the-constitution-and-technology-how-far-is-too-far/
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2017/06/22/facebook-threats-against-trump-lead-to-edwardsville-mans-arrest
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/dea-bulk-telephone-surveillance-operation/70808616/
Omar Ibrahim says:

September 17, 2017 at 2:57 pm

You make the point ,”The Constitution is not the end-all-be-all of the American Government” and while I agree, there are points of the constitution that have not changed since 1787, yet the country has.
In the Huffington Post article “The Constitution Is Outdated; Let’s Change It” several key points are made about the dynamic of the time the Constitution was written. First of all the “Founding Fathers” were slave owners. No matter how it’s cut up or what was written for the slaves in the wills, the writers of the American Constitution took part in one of, if not the most, inhumane practices in the history of the world. There are also many standards of government such as who can run for President, Congress, etc. and how. One must be 35 years old to run for President, 30 for the Senate, and 25 for the House. Do these ages need to change since the average life span has increased from 38 to almost 79 years and considering the reason for the age requirements was “The logic being that once you leave the Senate, you won’t have a chance to manipulate your clout for personal gain… since you’re probably going to die soon afterwards.” This is just one of many “slight changes” since 1787.
Another heavily debated part of the Constitution is the Second Amendment, there is a lot of to be left for interpretation when reading this amendment, that goes as such ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Does this only apply to militias? Can only white man bear arms? Is the military considered the militia now? Another point to be made is the evolution of guns. As pointed out by the New York Times article, “The Framers Had Muskets in Mind, Not Semiautomatic Rifles” With mass shootings being a huge problem in the country is it time to go back and look into not only the Second Amendment but the majority of the constitution. Considering the Congressional approval percentage is at 16% , the Presidential approval rate is at 37%, and the Supreme Court approval rate has been on a steady decline since 2000, maybe it’s time to stop criticizing the people in government, but the piece of paper that decides how it is run.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/10/opinion/l-the-framers-had-muskets-in-mind-not-semiautomatic-rifles-185890.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/galanty-miller/the-constitution-is-outdated_b_5439334.html

http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

http://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx
Austin Liptrot says:

September 17, 2017 at 10:43 pm

You make a number of strong points for the idea of a living constitution. While it is logical to bend the constitution to fit the time of interpretation, this leeway opens avenues to create a certain flexibility to the document which is vulnerable to a number of things. One of the strongest arguments against a living constitution is its susceptibility to activism. As mentioned in the comment above the Framers were highly educated people who garnered power through wealth and schooling, which is a privilege open to a select few. Those with less education might then be unaware of the issues that interpreting the constitution might have for future events. The constitution also does not identify how people should interpret it, which might serve both sides of the argument, but I believe might point to a much more moderate use of a living constitution. As you mentioned in your post, there were many issues the document left out because simply put the constitution could not have been all encompassing. However, this could mean that which the framers did explicitly state should be literally interpreted.
Jackson Grace says:

September 18, 2017 at 12:39 pm

Lauren, I appreciate and agree with you point that the constitution exists in order to structure and limit the powers of the 3 branches of our government and that it ought to be interpreted as such (and not perfectly literally). However, I think what might help clarify your point is that the US Constitution, and all constitutions, exist for to protect citizens from government and not the other way around. That is, constitutions specify the means governments can use to accomplish their goals. They are legally limited not to pursue extra-constitutional means. As such, I believe that there are some parts of our constitution which we must take literally. For example, when you discuss contemporary debates over the Bill of Rights as an example of how the constitution is “living,” I am fearful that if we decide that we might lose some of these rights, which the founders believed to be inherent. I am very serious about rights and reject any infringement or discussion over to what our natural rights entitle us. I know that gun violence in the US is currently an important issue that needs to be addressed, but, like others have said, I worry that if we start debating what the second amendment entitles us to, then we might some day move onto the first. I know that a lot of the debate over the second amendment is contextual–that is, does it apply to modern America where defense does not depend on a militia–but I also think that the Bill of Rights is sacred and shouldn’t really be debated. Those rights are what keep the government from doing anything to what we deserve simply on the basis of being human. In doing so, they afford us greater liberty. In the words of Ben Franklin: “any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” I feel that his message ought to be respected today and unfortunately rarely is. The NSA already tramples on our rights to privacy in favor of security, for one example. I’m uncomfortable with how far it could go if we decided that we try to over-interpret to what our rights entitle us.

Comments are closed.