The Constitution and Its Meaning

The U.S. Constitution was written as a guide for the government, and to protect the freedoms of the people. What it means has a direct impact on the quest for the American Dream; the “American Dream” being the idea of one having the freedom to better himself and the world around him. Some believe that this important founding document was written with the intent to accommodate change in its meaning with the changing of the times; yet in spite of the idea’s popularity, the thought is unfounded. The Constitution should be taken as literally as possible; the pursuit of the American Dream depends on it.

            A fairly sizable portion of Americans assume the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the times. This belief is entirely unfounded: there is very little evidence, if any, to back up this claim. However, there is a plethora of facts and quotes from the Founding Fathers and authors to the Constitution. James Madison, the “father” and author of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in a letter to Henry Lee in 1824;

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founder, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. (We Still Hold These Truths)

Madison states the Constitution would endure such a change in its meaning as to be unrecognizable, if one were to take its words and use them in a modern sense. He says the Constitution is only the legitimate Constitution when its meaning is taken in the sense of the time and wordage in which it was written. There are some that believe the Constitution is outdated anyway, and certainly shouldn’t be taken at face value. It was written over 200 years ago; things have changed, a document written so long ago can’t have accommodated for the future. For instance, the “three-fifths” clause. In reality, the Constitution is absolutely relevant; a timeless piece of work.

            The Constitution was written with specific language, not to be misinterpreted. So often, however, members of the government try to take the meaning of the Constitution into their own hands.

Homer Plessey filed suit against John Howard Ferguson, a judge who ruled that the  ‘Separate Car Act’ was constitutional in cases where it applied to transportation within a single state. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the Court refused to stop his trial by declaring the law unconstitutional. They found that laws requiring separation of the races did not imply inequality of either, and that so long as rail service for both races was equal, the 14th Amendment had not been violated. About 60 years later, the Court overturned that decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, ruling that segregated schools, even if equal in all tangible ways, still implied the inferiority of the black race, and thus were not equal. This principle was later extended to outlaw all official segregation. (Evinger and Goodwin)

Simply put, this quotation describes a case in which a law was ruled constitutional, and then unconstitutional in a later time. The author of the quote believes the ruling changed because circumstances had changed, and for the good of the people the Constitution needed to be interpreted with the change. To the contrary, if you read the fourteenth amendment, you can see it says in language clear as day that it is unconstitutional for any state to “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The ‘Separate Car Act’ clearly violates this section of the amendment, taking away the privilege of a person to sit where he pleases in a train without government intrusion. See, the meaning behind the Constitution is not and should not be up for debate. Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to Albert Gallatin;

[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law. (We Still Hold These Truths)

Jefferson, James Madison’s mentor and teacher, said that a law can be most safely interpreted from the words of the law directly. In some extreme and desperate cases, meaning and intention of a law could be closely interpreted; however, the interpretation must not contradict the written words. Essentially, if one were to look at and analyze the words of the constitution, they would see that the only injustices on behalf of Constitutional law occurred when the Constitution was freely interpreted.

            Another seemingly popular viewpoint is that of the Constitution being outdated. There are quite a few who see it as an antiquated piece of paper.

“I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution… To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.” (Seidman)

The professor speaks of the Constitution being written over 200 years ago and the men who wrote it are dead a long time gone. They couldn’t know what our country would be like today, and to continue following the outdated rules they laid out for us is ludicrous at best and a hindrance to progress.  Here’s the thing; times change, people change, and technologies change, but government and the power it boasts does not. The most prominent examples would be the Holy Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia along with many other countries. These countries either lacked a constitution or it was ignored and great atrocities were committed upon the people by their governments. Dictatorships had taken hold and tyranny ran free. The aforementioned societies have all had similar dictators rise to power. They disarm the populous, ignore or eradicate any law or constitution, and then take power. What’s more is the people generally support the initial grasp at leadership under the pretense of progress. They too believed their constitutions and governmental systems outdated; they wanted change. It’s probably safe to say the majority regret those decisions. The American Dream can only be achieved in a free society, and the U.S. Constitution protects the people and states from a tyrannical federal government; from both its rise and its reach.

            The most prominent and effective forms of grievance on behalf of the Constitution have come from loose interpretations of the document. The Supreme court, at one time, ruled gay marriage federally illegal. It is a barring of rights to homosexuals, and the Constitution does not say anything about the federal government making any law about gay marriage. The government has also prohibited drug use. This is also not an issue the government has been provisioned to rule on in the Constitution. Putting non-violent drug users in jail for petty drug use can and often does ruin a person’s life; committing them to a life of crime. The Constitution does not provide the federal government with the power or the right to make law on any of the above issues, or on a great many more. If the government were to leave the states to make laws that the fed has no Constitutional authority over, liberty would prevail and the American Dream would be easily achieved.

            The Constitution and its meaning are not up for interpretation. The law was written in very specific, to be adhered to strictly, in order to give the highest amount of liberty, freedom, and protection possible to the people of the United States of America. “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” (Jefferson, We Still Hold These Truths) If government loosely interprets the laws it must follow, anything could happen. Gays could be denied the right to live. Christians, the right to practice their beliefs. Or even common people to speak their mind or run for public office. The Constitution must be taken to its word, or liberty will fall and the American Dream will be lost to us all.

By Junior Robinson

Sources:

Madison, James. United States. U.S. Constitution. Philadelphia: , 1791. Print.

Quezzaire, Pilar, and Andrew Walter. "U.S. Constitution: An Overview." Points of View: U.S.            Constitution (2011): N. Pag.. Points of View. Database. 13 Mar 2013.

Jacobs, W.E., and Heather Newton. "Point: The Meaning of the U.S. Constitution is Not to Be Found in   Evolving Interpretations." Points of View: U.S. Constitution (2011): N. Pag.. Points of View. Database. 13 Mar 2013.

Evinger, Barbara, and Chuck Goodwin. "Counterpoint: The Constitution Should Change With the Times."Points of View: U.S. Constitution (2011): N. Pag.. Points of View. Database. 14 Mar 2013.

"U.S. Constitution: Guide to Critical Analysis." Points of View: U.S. Constitution (2011): N. Pag.. Points of View. Database. 14 Mar 2013.

Spalding, Matthew. "Constitutional Interpretation Quotes." We Still Hold These Truths (2012): n.pag. The Heritage Foundation. Web. 14 Mar 2013.

Seidman, Louis Michael. "Take Our Country Back, From the Constitution." 27 Jan 2013. Speech.