Posted by
flagwaver on Sunday, December 02, 2007 10:43:31 PM
Controversy: (n) 1: a discussion marked esp. by expression of opposing views: DISPUTE 2: QUARREL, STRIFE
Seemingly on a daily basis, we are confronted with alleged constitutional controversies that have to be settled by the 9 wise ones on the Supreme Court. We are confronted with the abortion controversy, gun control controversies, or civil rights controversies. But how many of these controversies really stand up to scrutiny?
The United States Constitution is not a controversial document, mainly because it is about as direct a document as you will ever find. It says what it means, and means what it says for the most part. It is also not a document filled with “gray areas” or secret meanings, since the Founders seemed to want a document that was easy to understand and to implement; basically the Constitution lays out the functions of the federal government and leaves everything else in the hands of the various states. Nothing could be simpler, right?
Wrong!
But the controversies that are constitutional in nature do not come from the document itself, those conflicts occur when someone attempts to “interpret” what the Constitution clearly says. And usually that “interpretation” is in direct contrast with the words written in the text of the document itself, and reveals some particular political agenda.
Take the controversy over abortion as an example; we here at Town Hall have had a healthy debate over the abortion issue at The View From the Island blog, mainly over whether or not abortion is a state’s rights issue. Some, like BrianR take the position that there should be some federal guideline about when life starts which would basically put the issue entirely in the hands of the federal government. Others, like me, argue that the issue has always been and should always be left to the states; we argue that federal involvement in the issue was unconstitutional on its face to begin with. But the problem with this entire issue lies with the SCOTUS attempting to “interpret” the Constitution, and managing to find what Justice William O. Douglas called “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees” in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments to the Constitution. From this legalistic gobbledygook the SCOTUS was able to find a “right” to abortion that just happened to fit the liberal policy preferences of the Court’s majority in 1965. Nowhere does the Constitution assign a right to absolute privacy to the people, but in order to make their policy preferences law the SCOTUS managed to find an “interpretation” that fit exactly what THEY thought the Constitution should say about the issue.
And now we have a case that will be heard on the right to bear arms in the city of Washington, DC. Basically, the court is set to decide if DC’s draconian gun control laws that basically prohibit law abiding citizens to arm themselves passes constitutional muster. What boggles my mind here is that this case has to even be argued, since the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Tell me what is confusing about this: “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.”
That seems pretty simple, until you get lawyers, judges, and politicians with their personal agendas involved in “interpreting” what the Constitution is really saying…because it simply cannot mean what is written on the page! So we have those that attempt to break the amendment into clauses that support their particular…usually anti-gun…positions. So you can have a city basically outlaw gun ownership for its citizens, in clear violation of the words of the Constitution and not have that ban laughed out of court.
And that is the problem with attempting to “interpret” the Constitution; the plain meaning of the document gets lost in the rush to make it say what the interpreters want it to say. It is high time that we stopped allowing judges individually, or in groups to determine what the Constitution says. So long as we allow that, controversy will reign and the republic will be lost a little more with each of them.