"We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the [Supreme] Court and from the Court itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution - not over it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937."Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government ... the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78.
The appropriate primary purpose of political arrangements is the prevention of tyranny. The US Constitution provides the longest-lived continuous framework that approaches this lofty purpose. The genius of the US Constitution is embodied in the dynamic balance between self-government and constraints on the will of the majority - the "Madisonian compromise." The Constitution further defines separate roles for the branches of government additionally reducing the possibility of acquisition of complete authority by a single person or small group. The branch with the weakest active powers, the judiciary, is trusted with the adjudication of the application of the Constitution.
In order for the Constitution to provide a long lasting framework, its meaning must be reasonably clear and stable. If the Constitution is too vague or if Constitutional interpretation becomes infinitely malleable, bendable to current political winds, then it means nothing and affords none of its original protections.
The Left-wing in this century has wished for additional Constitutional powers for the federal government, powers that exceed the explicitly enumerated ones. It has, therefore, nurtured constitutional theories that view the constitution as a "living" document to be used, if necessary to achieve socially useful goals. At US law schools left-leaning faculty have divided, dissected, and deconstructed the Constitution to the point that common sense meanings are no longer considered. This sewage unfortunately leaks into judicial decisions. Although there are provisions for amending the Constitution, they involved the nasty necessity of persuading three-fourths of the states. It is so much easier to persuade five people than a strong majority of the electorate.
Until relatively recently, Constitutional law was interpreted in the light of the guiding principle of "original understanding" - the plain meaning of the text at the time the words were written. Constitutional law grew slowly and organically from text itself. There were times when original understanding was ignored or misapplied, as evidenced by the Drew Scott decision, but at least the principle provided important intellectual limits on how far the country could stray from the Constitution.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Frank Monaldo's Conservative Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.