Interpreting the Constitution

Some people claim the Constitution is easy to interpret. They believe it places strict boundaries on what the Supreme Court should decide. You would almost think there would be no Supreme Court cases at all given the completely logical infallibility of the document.

Others believe you can interpret the Constitution by knowing the intentions of its authors. Let's take abortion for instance. What did the authors of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers have to say about abortion? Nothing. Abortion is not a word contained in either document. That leads us back into the murky waters of interpretation, and the whole process of legal scholarship since the Constitution came into effect.

Let's not tee up the abortion issue now. There is plenty to discuss, but that leads into a lot of other issues.

The authors of the Constitution were secular thinking people. The scholarship seems overwhelming on that point. That doesn't prevent some folks believing that the Constitution was founded on the Bible if not merely an extension of it. Check the Bill of Rights, Amendment I. To those who want their particular faith to be the guiding light for Constitutional interpretation, I say, yes, you do, right up until the time some other faith has taken power.

The Constitution exists in culture not just in the minds and writing of the legal scholars. That means I interpret the Constitution too. I know. The temerity of the little people. To read the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution.

A strict application of the Constitution has its place, but sometimes it doesn't when it comes to all those messy little details like rights and duties.

Just so you know. I believe in legalized abortion and a woman's right to choose. I don't believe in a religious interpretation of the Constitution. Those are stories for another time.