Interpreting The Constitution

The United States Constitution was written in 1786 and soon adopted on September 17, 1787. It is the basis of our judicial system in America and was made to be the structure that holds together the freedom of America. Our founders created the Constitution with the intent to have it last and adapt with our constantly changing society. It is understood that society’s values will change with the future and it is impossible to predict these changes. This is why our founders created the Constitution with the intent to allow our future Supreme Court judges the ability to have a more interpretive analysis of the Constitution. There are two strong apposing opinions on the best way to interpret the Constitution. These two sides are displayed strongly in the articles, “The Notions of a Living Constitution,” by William H. Rehnquist, and an excerpt apposing piece by Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf. Rehnquist argues on the side of strict constructionist or the view that the Constitution should be read and judgments should be made based solely on the words of Constitution and no reading in between the lines be allowed. The alternate approach to following the Constitution is the interpretivist view which Tribe and Dorf argue in their piece. The interpretivist view incorporates a deeper meaning into what is written and looks at the different rights outlined as more guidelines to many alternate rights that were not included. With an analysis of the Constitution that connects many of the outlined common ideals, which together create a strong base for the American justice system, a modern day judge will be able to make a decision that will be influenced by the values of today’s society and not solely by the values from the 18th century. I am going to outline the intents of the founders in concerns of interpreting the Constitution. I will show the necessity of allowing interpreted decisions based on the changing values of America due to history and technology. I will show the clear intent of the 9th Amendment to allow Supreme Court justices the ability to make their own decisions in recognizing rights that are not specifically outlined directly in the writings of the Constitution. There are many arguments against decisions made by the Supreme Court that assume the generality of the words of the Constitution; however, I will disclaim those allegations and prove the security behind all Supreme Court decisions. Finally I will bring to light court decisions that have been made in the past both right and wrong that prove the necessity of an interpretivist approach when analyzing the writing of our Constitution.

It is a common fact of knowledge that over time societies change, and encompassed in that change is the change of the many values of the society. Our founders understood this idea and were sure to structure our Constitution accordingly. The Constitution was written with exceptionally vague language, and in many cases with no explanation to the writings at all. A clear example to this is the 4th Amendment in which it states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This is the amendment in its entirety, which leaves large gaps up for interpretation. There is no definition of the term unreasonable or probable cause. These decisions have been left to the judicial system to make their ruling based upon the fundamental ideals of the society in their own day and age. This example is a simple look into the actual intentions of the writers of the Constitution. So much of the Constitution was left undefined and inconclusive, and this was done for a specific reason. A Constitution that is set in stone would never stand the test of time. The founders understood that they could never have predicted the way society runs today or even further in the future. Therefore, they designed the writing by simply installing the key fundamentals that would stand behind the foundation of America, then allowing our judicial system to make their educated decisions based upon the values of the society in that day and age.

Another subsequent look into the intentions of the founder’s interpretation of the Constitution is the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment was created for one reason, the founder’s intents to recognize the rights that future civilians have in their day and age that they may have not been able to foresee in the 1700’s. The 9th Amendment was created very vague and left the door wide open to any number of rights that people feel they deserve. However, this was done with a definite purpose behind it. By allowing judges to make decisions based upon rights that are not necessarily outlined in the Constitution, the founders have affirmed that the Constitution will last through the changing society. It has the ability to adapt to the values of society and recognize rights that didn’t exist before. Our Constitution is strong and maintains our freedom in America so it was designed to maintain its strength through time.

William Rehnquist argues that, “an individual’s persuading of one or more appointed federal judges to impose on other individuals a rule of conduct that the popularly elected branches of government would not have enacted and the voters have not and would not have embodied in the Constitution” (Rehnquist, 41). Many of these beliefs rest behind the idea that we will get an extremely biased judge on the Supreme Court panel and eventually make a decision that will set a precedence that goes directly against the welfare of the American people. Our Supreme Court officials