The most used defense in United States history has always been the Constitution. People have justified many deeds and/or criminal actions with this document. Written a little over two hundred years ago, it’s no surprise that the Constitution is highly debated. In fact, the United States has an entire branch of government specifically for interpreting the Constitution: the judicial branch. However, even the judicial branch’s interpretation is debated; the Supreme Court is constantly judged for its decisions.
People wonder just what role the Supreme Court must have in interpreting the Constitution; many varying ideas have surfaced about this. Some take on a more literal interpretation of the Constitution when judging the level of constitutionality of laws, but others thought that the document was just a vague outline. Supreme Court Justices themselves have strong, differing views on how they should interpret the Constitution. In his speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University in 1985, Justice Brennan spoke of how he believes the Supreme Court should handle interpreting the Constitution.
Mentioning the Declaration and Bill of Rights, Brennan declared that all three documents aspire to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity, expanding on that idea by saying “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority. ” He essentially thought that the aim of the Justices’ decisions should be staying true to that all-encompassing equality.
Brennan also stressed that, since it is impossible to know the founders’ true intent in writing these documents, Justices should use the ideas behind the texts rather than deal with literal interpretations on them. He made a point to show that interpretation for Justices is not an easy task, declaring that “the phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked. ” Given that the Constitution can be so vague, no interpretations of the text are final.
No fixed or final says in interpreting the Constitution exist because the opinions there do not remain static; they must be revised. Brennan recommended that Justices should interpret ahead of where the community is so as to encourage a greater expansion and realization of humanity. Given that “the demands of human dignity will never cease to evolve,” Justices should, in turn, never cease to advance in their interpretations and opinions. Decisions in the Supreme Court all break down into whether or not certain laws and/or restrictions violate the Constitution or not. In Gonzales v.
Carhart in 2007, the accused violation being addressed was a breach of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, specifically the section that states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” The issue at hand dealt with the intact D and E procedure used in abortions and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibited said procedure. In a 5 to 4 decision, Justice Kennedy ruled in favor of Gonzales, saying that it still upholds the 14th Amendment.
This decision, according to Brennan’s interpretation of the Constitution, was incorrect. This is further seen in Justice Ginsburg’s Dissenting Opinion. She starts her argument with ”Today’s decision is alarming,” clearly showing her distaste for the proceedings and leading into the reasoning behind her opinion. Ginsburg mentioned, several times, that the decision of the Supreme Court in this case undermined a woman’s right to choose. This argument can be connected to Justice Brennan’s thoughts concerning human dignity being protected in the Constitution.
To undermine a woman’s right is to take away some of her worth, leaving a serious dent in her dignity. The Supreme Court’s decision is wrong because it not only takes that sense of worth away from women and their right to choose, but it also takes a sense of worth away from its previous decision pertaining to pre-viability and post-viability standards. Ginsburg continued by addressing the health aspect of the Opinion of the Court, saying ”The very purpose of a health exception is to protect women in exceptional cases,” bringing her argument towards social justice.
If the Supreme Court took this opportunity, this exception, away from women, what else can it do to violate the supposed equal distribution of opportunities and privileges? As Brennan mentioned in his speech, the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, aspires to social justice. Making a medical procedure no longer a possibility for doctors or their patients is a violation of social justice and human dignity. One final point made by Ginsburg is that access to abortion is crucial for women to “enjoy equal citizenship stature,” addressing another aspect within human dignity.
Taking away any access to abortion is taking away rights from women everywhere, giving them less control and causing them to be unequal to men. Brennan noted that the Constitution aspired for all to be equal in all authority, but that was not taken into account in this decision. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has not always misinterpreted the Constitution. In 2005, in McCreary v American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court recognized the dignity and all-inclusive equality within the Constitution when declaring, in a 5 to 4 decision, that a display in Kentucky violated the Establishment Clause.
This clause is found in the Amendment One of the Constitution and states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of. ” The violation occurred when a courthouse in Kentucky put the Ten Commandments in a display along with other historical documents. The Supreme Court was correct in this decision because, as Brennan stated in his speech, the Constitution aspires to human dignity, a dignity that cannot be respected if one religion is clearly encouraged and displayed over others.
Such displays take away from the self-respect of other American citizens and decrease their self-worth, which is not what the Constitution supports. The explanation of said transgression was given by Justice Souter in the Opinion of the Court. Souter, when discussing the Establishment Clause, pointed out that, while the clause obviously prohibits a national church, “nothing in the text says just how much more it covers”. This goes along with Brennan’s argument that the founders’ intent is not at all clear.
Just as mentioned earlier, the Constitution was written to be vague, Interpreters are given some freedom in their portrayal of this document, as seen in the Establishment Clause. However, Souter did note that ”the evidence does show . . . a group of statesmen . . . who proposed a guarantee with contours not wholly worked out, leaving the Establishment Clause with edges to be determined,” meaning that the clause is open to additions and clarifications, offering room for our constantly evolving rights, just as Brennan stated.
Souter continued his examination of the Establishment Clause by saying that it requires neutrality toward religion and non-religion, emphasizing that the actions of the Kentucky courthouse were unconstitutional because of their exclusivity. The United States Constitution is a very tricky document to examine. Given how long ago it was written and how vague the framers were, the Supreme Court has a difficult job. While interpretation of the Constitution is debated, Justice Brennan provided a very reasonable outlook on the task.
He highlighted that aspirations of social justice, human dignity, and brotherhood seen within the document and stressed that the Constitution “on its face is, in large measure, a structuring text, a blueprint for government. ” Brennan made it clear that the framers of the text were intentionally vague and truly desired all-encompassing equality. When interpreting the Constitution and making decisions concerning laws, it is very important to keep in mind that the Constitution should not be interpreted literally, but the ideas behind and between the lines of the text should be honored.