Tanner Rotering

Essentially, there are two prominent ideologies on how to interpret the Constitution.  One such ideology is called “Strict Constructionism.”  This technique for Constitutional “interpretation” is based on the idea that the Constitution should be “interpreted” based on what the Constitution actually says and on what the founders intended those words to actually mean.  (Though the strict definition does not actually include the considerations of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, the term “Strict Constructionism” is often used to include this “originalism.”)  The second method of interpretation for the Constitution is based on the idea that the Constitution is a “Living Constitution.”  Proponents of this view state that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the needs and ideas of the day since the Constitution was simply an embodiment of certain principles to be applied.  Of these two views, the ideology of “Strict Constructionism” is the only theory that is legally sound and beneficial to the United States of America.

The purpose of a constitution is to establish certain rules and principles for a civilization and for its government.  These rules are intended to establish a certain foundation upon which a nation is to be built and run.  This foundation is intended to preserve order and to protect the rights of citizens.  If these rules and principles are able to be “interpreted” differently than how they were originally written or intended, like the proponents of the “Living Constitution” claim they are, then there is essentially no purpose to having a set of rules in the first place.  But because there obviously was a purpose of having a definitive set of rules in the Constitution, we can conclude that they were not intended to be loosely interpreted in various ways.

If the Constitution was intended to merely be an embodiment of certain principles to follow, why would it be so specific in how those principles were to be carried out?  Clearly the Constitution was intended not only to promote certain ideals, but also to propose a specific way in which to implement such ideals in order to optimally achieve them.  If government officials think that they can achieve such ideals differently, good for them, but they have no authority to implement these alternative techniques without the Constitution.

The fact that the Constitution does list a specific procedure for altering itself further discounts the claims of the Living Constitutionalists.  That procedure is the amendment process.  If the Constitution was intended to be altered through interpretations by Supreme Court Justices, then the Constitution would say so, but because the Constitution specifically lists only one such process (the amendment process), we must assume this is the only intended way to change the Constitution.

The Supreme Court should not be considered the ultimate authority on “interpreting” the Constitution, as if the Constitution was not clear in its intent.  Instead, the Supreme Court should be considered the ultimate authority on applying the Constitution, as in deciding how the clearly written rules of the Constitution are to be applied to specific situations.  This distinction could be considered a trivial point, but it is key to expressing what exactly the purpose of the Constitution is: a binding contract.  Binding contracts are not intended to be “interpreted” based off of changing conditions, but rather they are intended to be definite and unchanging unless a legally sound mutual agreement is made to dissolve the contract.  In politics, this technique is the constitutional amendment.

In addition to being legally unsound, the idea of a Living Constitution is also a potentially catastrophic philosophy for the well-being of the United States.  If the Constitution could be changed (because that is essentially what is happening when the Supreme Court misinterprets it) simply based upon the judgment of nine individuals, then our “democratic republic” would actually be an oligarchy.  In fact, our nation has already experienced many such instances in which these nine individuals have made decisions that completely ignore the intended meaning of the Constitution.  Because the idea of a Living Constitution has gone largely unchallenged in the political arena, there is a risk that this trend will continue, leaving the possibility of further unlawful alterations of the Constitution.

With this risk of what is essentially a Constitutional violation comes the risk that many of the rights protected within the Constitution will also be violated.  If the Constitution has no binding authority over the officials of the United States of America, then these officials could essentially do whatever they want.  Already laws have been made that restrict the right to bear arms within certain cities like San Francisco because officials have “interpreted” the Second Amendment not to mean that each individual has the right to own a gun.  That is clearly not an accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment which says, “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.”  The decision that one cannot own a gun in San Francisco clearly was one based on the philosophy of a living Constitution since a strict literal interpretation based on what the intent of the Constitution is would not lead to such a decision.  The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Under governments where gun rights are restricted, it is much easier for the government to oppress the people or for a military coup to occur since the citizens have no access to weaponry.  This was a major concern for the American colonies due to the recent oppression by the British government.  Thus, a violation of our Second Amendment rights further weakens our ability to protect ourselves.  But under the “Living Constitution” view, these concerns are supposedly no longer applicable since that “could never happen in America!”  Why not?  The natural trend for a government to try to take more and more power should be proof enough that this threat is possible in America as well.  After all, power corrupts.  Clearly, the “Living Constitution” is a dangerous philosophy due to its potential to lead to the violation of citizens’ rights and not just the right to bear arms.

Whenever there is any question concerning the meaning of the Constitution, the most probable intended meaning should be used since the meaning of a work is best known by the author himself.  Thus, when in doubt, Supreme Court Judges should look to the Founding Fathers.  Though there was some disagreement about the meaning of the Constitution even amongst the Founding Fathers, the meaning of most of the Constitution was well understood, and for the parts that weren’t, the Supreme Court should refer to the general consensus among the Founding Fathers concerning what that specific passage means, if available.  If the meaning is still not clear after all of this, then the Supreme Court should then use its own judgment based upon what it thinks would be the most just decision.  Only after the intentions of the Founding Fathers are considered should the Supreme Court ever use its own opinions since the Constitution is a set of principles which ultimately drew their meaning and origin from the men who gave them life.

Clearly, the Constitution should be applied through “Strict Constructionism,” since this is the most legally sound way to do so, and because without this method the rights of American citizens are at risk.