What is the Constitution? What does it do and what does it not do?

The United States Constitution is a basic framework of government, primarily at the national level but also with requirements or prohibitions at the state level.

The initial premise of the Constitution is that of defining and limiting Federal Government power, that is to say if an act does not fall within the limits of the Constitution, the Federal Government does not possess that power. This is reaffirmed by the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment in clear and conscience terms layout the Constitution is a limiting document, the power not specifically granted to it are reserved to the two powers who created the Constitution, the States (who created it in the Convention of 1787) and the People (who ratified it causing it to go into effect on March 4, 1789).

 

The focus here will be on the Constitution as it was in 1788 chiefly. Amendments will be cited when it has changed aspects of the text or provisions of the Constitution and how it has changed those provisions, but the Amendments themselves are not a focus topic in this article.

Role of the Supreme Court (Quick Thoughts)

Today I was watching a news show, and the discussion was the potential retirement of Justice Ginsburg in 2015. During the commentary, one comment from a pundit really caught my attention in regards to the Supreme Court. He was discussing how the 2012 Presidential Election will have a significant impact on the Court pending the winner in the General Election in November. It was the comment at the end, not so much the philosophy or jurisprudence that struck me. He said, "One of the most important things an Executive will do is nominate to the Supreme Court", this I do not disagree with. It was the reasoning that I do, because he stated after this, "The Supreme Court decides who gets equal Rights", and then proceeded to state how one candidate should "Scare the hell" out of the people if he were to win, the latter being besides the point.

The role of the Supreme Court is NOT to decide who gets equal rights, this is already addressed in multiple places on who does.

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 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.

United States vs Jones (Unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual)

I touched on this decision in Quick Thoughts as a victory for the Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts) in regards to unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual. Now I want to dive a little bit deeper into it, in regards to the Founding influences and how they were applied to this case. You can read the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) opinion and additional concurrence opinions here¹ (Cornell University Law School).

The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Scalia and is the main one of focus here. Additional concurrence opinions were also written by Justices Sotomayor and Alito who had differing reasons based on precedent however, reaching the same conclusion.

Synopsis

The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government than tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. (sic from SCOTUS ruling)

Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts)

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules law enforcement agencies may not track your privately owned vehicle with a GPS device, unless authorized by a warrant. The decision was unanimous and correct. For starters the Fourth Amendment was designed as a method to prevent the government from intruding into the private matters or property of individuals or groups unless proper cause could be justified BEFORE hand in a warrant, not the other way around.

To often the Bill of Rights has been viewed as the limit of individual or group rights, defining the limit up to what government can do, but it was not designed to do this. The Bill of Rights was designed to specifically prohibit certain actions to further limit what government may do. The Federal Government was bound by certain limits in the Constitution, and a strong argument against the Bill of Rights was that it may end up expanding Government powers, by claiming what was not specifically protected, such as this case. (see Bill of Rights or limitations).

Even though the exact specification of tracking citizens is not specifically prohibited by name in the Fourth Amendment, the concept of it being prohibited is. A person or group CAN NOT be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects if every move that person or possession is tracked. You vehicle is your effect, and you are guaranteed to be secure in it from unwarranted searches or seizures. By monitoring its every move in such a manner it is to make the effect and person unsecure from the government, effectively a search of the effect and person.

Not only is government prohibited from warrantless searches and seizures specifically in the Fourth Amendment, but this also has Ninth Amendment implications as well, that to be free from government monitoring is one of the "other rights retained by the people". This Amendment was designed to prevent such a move by the government that usurps the intention and motivation of the Bill of Rights, to protect every right retained by all people not just those specifically cited in the previous eight Amendments.

Quick Thoughts: The Bill of Rights does not enumerate the People’s Rights!

 

On May 17, 2011 a Federal District Court Judge made a ruling that caught my interest, not the subject itself completely (though the subject still did catch my interest) but rather the rationale in the decision made. This decision was not based directly off of the Constitution itself for what it says, but rather off of previous courts decisions alone, using stare decisis. As I discuss in an article of stare decisis, stare decisis is prudent provided it used properly and in the correct manner and this is not a situation in which it was, by the Judges own admission in his opinion.

The background of this case concerns concealed weapons, the actual subject of the case is of actual little matter to my opinion here, rather it is his jurisprudence that I will examine. Yolo County CA banned concealed weapons, and a challenge was brought against the County citing 2nd Amendment protections.

The plaintiffs (contending the ban was unconstitutional) argued the same manner of interpretation should be applied to the Second Amendment as is the First Amendment (it is to protect maximum freedom of the subject). The Judges response to this was,

The Court sees no reason to analogize rights under the Second Amendment to those under the First, as plenty of case authority exists to provide a clear framework of analysis to facial challenges, without poaching precedent from another Amendment’s framework.

Convention of 1787: June 4, 1787 Day 8; One Executive, Council of Revision and the Veto

 

After a Sunday of, following debate on the Executive on June 2, 1787, the Convention resumes its debates with the Executive on June 4, 1787. June 2, resolved very little on the Executive, and little of what was agreed to will actually remain through the final draft, mainly the ability to impeach the President, while a seven year term would eventually be changed.

Singular or Plural Executive Decided

Charles Pinckney (South Carolina) resumes discussion on whether the Executive should be singular or plural, by moving,

“Shall the Blank for the Number of the Executive be filled with a single person”.

This motion is seconded by James Wilson (Pennsylvania) and noted it was opposed by Edmund Randolph (Virginia), since no arguments to this point in the convention had convinced him a singular was best. James Wilson observed the objections were not leveled so much at the measure itself, as much as at its unpopularity. On examination he could see no evidence of the apathy of the people, on the contrary was persuaded it did not exist. All know a single magistrate is not a king. One fact had great weight; ALL Thirteen States had a single magistrate. The idea of three heads has taken place in none, and Wilson saw tranquility in one head which would not be obnoxious to the people, they were used to the single executive. Three may divide, two may not agree resulting in Anarchy and confusion¹, and he foresaw uncontrolled and continued and violent animosities, which would interrupt the Administration, but diffuse their poison through the other branches of Government, through the States and the People. Roger Sherman (Connecticut) felt the matter is of great importance and ought be well considered be determined. He noted a single magistrate in each state. He also noted each State Magistrate had a council and favored one.

Constitution Convention Notes: June 4, 1787

This is the Notes of the Convention of 1787 (The Federal Convention) for June 4, 1787. The notes included are those that specifically address this day, and do not include notes of others who may address the topics of the day. You can download and read those, and the entire collection of Notes recorded at the Constitution Convention in the Links and Downloads section. These contain the entire series of Notes on the Convention from James Madison, Rufus Kings, James McHenry, William Pierce, William Patterson, Alexander Hamilton and Robert Yates, in addition with the Journal from the Convention can be read by following this link, Federal Journal of the Convention of 1787.

Stare Decisis; Legitimate Precedence or Bad begetting bad.

Stare Decisis (ster-ē-di-ˈsī-səs) is a Latin word meaning “stand by the decision”, it is the use of precedent, or prior judicial rulings,  in determining a law in question. Merriam-Webster defines it as¹:

A doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.

A simple internet search will turn up various different ways to define stare decisis, but all will follow the same basic principle in its definition, a doctrine of using what courts have ruled before on a similar case and apply it to a similar case. Stare decisis can be argued in many different ways from criminal and civil law, arbitration, etc., but the focus here will be only in regards to interpreting the Constitution in the Federal Court System, and the role it should play in determining what law is.

As an Originalist, stare decisis has legitimate use in not only the Supreme Court but inferior courts as well. But I also contend stare decisis is a doctrine that has no place in certain regards when determining if a law or case before the court is Constitutional. Being an Originalist an inconsistent application must be avoided in order to remain consistent in interpreting the Constitution across all cases and scenarios that may arise. So in order to do this, situations on stare decisis prudent use need to be recognized, and they way I do this is two fold:

1. What court is reviewing the case.
2. On what aspect of the case to apply it.

 

General Welfare (complete)

 

Perhaps no single Clause is more contentious than the General Welfare clause, found in Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution,

• The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

In particular the part of “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” being the one that is most often cited as granting the Federal Government a broad and sweeping amount of power. Many things Congress does, or wishes to do are justified as being for the “General Welfare” of the United States, that many may contend it does not permit.

General Welfare (Part 4) Final Drafts and Debates of the Convention

After the Committee of Detail presented its final draft of a Constitution to the Convention on August 6th (as discussed in Part 3), debates began on the various aspects, provisions and clauses. The Constitution presented contained 23 Articles, with Article VII representing what would become Article I Sections 8, the Section that contains “general welfare”. Article VII of the proposed Constitution contains the enumerated powers as well as prohibitive powers similar to what would end up being Article I Section 9, among others.

Article VII Section Clause 1 reads:

• The legislature of the United States shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

Just as with the following 17 clauses after this clause, general welfare or any similar variant does not appear anywhere within these 18 clauses.

It would not be until the next day a reference to General welfare in some would appear, but it would be tied to Article III of the proposed Constitution. Article III concerned establishing the Legislature to consist of two bodies, each having a negative on the other [not giving assent to the others bills], and when it should meet.

General Welfare (Part 3) Debates in Convention, Committee of Detail

As already discussed [in Part 2]on July 26th, the Convention broke into Committee of Detail [selected July 24th] until August 6th. The Committee consisted of five members Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut) Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts) Edmund Randolph (Virginia) John Rutledge (South Carolina) James Wilson (Pennsylvania). The purpose of this committee was to make a draft constitution for the Convention as agreed to through this point of debating. Max Farrands records on the Convention contain James Wilson’s [Pennsylvania] notes from the committee, the only records of the committee that may in fact be available from the committee. James Madison’s Notes [Virginia] do not contain the committee with July 26th-Aug 6th having no entries, similarly Rufus King [Massachusetts] from July 15-Aug 7th. James McHenry [Maryland] did not return to the Convention until Aug 6th, after departing for personnel reason in Jun. Robert Yates [New York] last entry in from July 5th, before departing the convention, William Pierce [Georgia] does not address the Committee, nor does William Patterson [New York], or Alexander Hamilton [New york], though several do mention the committee did take place during this time, these are among the most common records of the convention itself.

General Welfare (Part 2) Debates in Convention, the First Drafts.

 

How did “General Welfare” end up in the Constitution? As noted in Part 1, the term was used in the Articles of Confederation, and a similar term was used in the Constitutions of several states. But how did it end up in the Constitution, and what was it thought of during the debates of Ratification, and not only the term general welfare, but the clause as a whole? What is perhaps the most striking aspect of general welfare during the Constitution Convention of 1787, is how little it was actually discussed, this is even more amplified considering the considerable debate among many of the other enumerated powers found in Article I Section 8.

The term General Welfare came up very early in the Convention, the first day after the rules of the Convention had been agreed upon, we see its first use. On May 29, 1787 Edmund Randolph, he Governor of Virginia rose and presented a proposed outline to a new Constitution, known commonly today as the Virginia Plan. In the very first resolution, Randolph he state the purpose of his proposal.

• 1. Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, "common defence, security of liberty and general welfare” ¹

In the Virginia plan, this use of General Welfare is in direct reference to its use in the Articles of Confederation, which [as described in Part 1] was a term to describe the general purpose of the Articles, and carried no direct power to the Congress Assembled. Randolph in his first resolution also uses it for this purpose, to describe the general intention or purpose of the Virginia plan, as it relates to the general purpose of the Articles of Confederation, to correct and amend the articles to secure the common defense, security of liberty and general welfare, not as a resolution of power.

On May 30th, the Convention broke to committee to consider Randolph’s resolutions, with his first resolution postponed indefinitely, in order to consider the following.

• That a union of the states merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation—namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare. ¹

This resolution was in addition to two others agreed to regarding the general concepts of forbidding the States from making treaties, and making a government consisting of three branches, Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. The use of the term here has no differing meaning than what Randolph had proposed the prior day in the Virginia Plan.

June 13th is the next time we encounter either general welfare itself, a draft of what would be the final version of  Article I Section 8 Clause 1 or comparable scope of power, on a report from committee concerning a the basic structure of a new government [prelude to the New Jersey Plan].

• 6. Resolved, That the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation; and moreover, to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the Articles of Union or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union. ¹

On June 15th the new Jersey Plan was submitted by William Patterson [New Jersey], with the 3rd Resolution addressing the ability to tax, in proportion to the population of all free persons, and indentured servants [excluding Indians not taxed]. But no mention of the purpose of the power to tax is described as we would come to see it in the Constitution.

The debates of the New Jersey plan carry into June 16th, when James Wilson [Pennsylvania] brought up 13 points in regards to the New Jersey Plan. His 6th point was:

• 6. The national legislature is to make laws in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, &c.; in place of this, Congress are to have additional power in a few cases only. ¹

James Wilson later on, while discussing the necessity to divide the Legislature into two house, made the following point in regards to Congress in a single Legislature:

• If the Legislative Authority be not restrained there can be neither liberty nor stability. ¹

Even though James Wilson [who did sign the Constitution] was discussing the need of having two house in the Legislature vice one as proposed in the New Jersey Plan, the sentiment carries is what is significant, is the desire for restraint on the Legislature, this was essential to ensure Liberty and to maintain a stable political system.

Though this resolution does directly reflect either general welfare or its clause, it does go toward showing the desire of the convention to base the power structure off of the Articles of Confederation, and expand them as needed.

It was not until July 17th that General Welfare was again discussed [in the records of the notes whom attended and the Federal Journal].

• Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN observed, that it would be difficult to draw the line between the powers of the general legislature and those to be left with the states; that he did not like the definition contained in the resolution; and proposed, in its place, to the words “individual legislation,” inclusive, to insert “to make laws binding on the people of the United States in all cases which may concern the common interests of the Union; but not to interfere with the government of the individual states in any matters of internal police which respect the government of such states only, and wherein the general welfare of the United States is not concerned.” ¹

Roger Sherman [Connecticut] was discussing the following clause from the day before.

• “And moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation,” ¹

At this point in the Convention the Delegates were debating the division of power from the National [Federal] and State Governments. Fresh on the minds of all was the inability of a state to quell a rebellion [Shay’s rebellion] in addition to the inability of the Congress Assembled to stop it because it lacked the power, in addition to numerous other short comings associated with the Articles of Confederation. This clause immediately drew the ire of several Delegates including Pierce Butler [South Carolina] and Nathaniel Gorham [Massachusetts]. They both contended on an explanation of particularly “incompetent”, and, “The vagueness of the terms rendered it impossible for any precise judgment to be formed”. John Rutledge [South Carolina] was also opposed, and moved for it be struck, with the votes being even, this motion failed.

Back to Roger Sherman’s motion, after being opposed by Gouverneur Morris [Pennsylvania] that some items the States did need policing, such as paper money, Roger Sherman defended the proposal by.

• “in explanation of his idea, read an enumeration of powers, including the power of levying taxes on trade, but not the power of direct taxation.”. [italics noted in Madison’s Notes on the convention] ¹

In the end Roger Sherman’s proposal failed by a substantial 8-2 vote. But what is to note here is, nowhere in the discussion was General Welfare moved to be a power of General Power, but was rather simply used as a passive term of description of the purpose of his proposal. The debate centered around how to effectively divide National from State powers, and the overall premise was the National government could not interfere with the actions of a State, unless it was against the interest of the “general welfare”, of the United states as a whole. as he later explained was limited to the enumerated powers and levying of taxes on trade. In the whole context, the idea was not to enable the National government to do things it felt were in the National welfare, but to prevent only those that were actions by states that were against the whole National welfare. As it was implied in this instance, it was not making reference to it is a general enabling power to a governing body.

The fact that the “incompetent’ drew a significant amount of attention from several delegates due to its potential of allowing the government to expand its powers to those it was not intended, while the term “general welfare” was drew no objections at all, goes to only supports the previous notion, that this term is used as a general meaning phrase to describe purpose and not a power enabling general clause. The whole debate around this single use is substantial in that it also was in reference of taxing power, the power that would eventual be described in the very same clause general welfare ended up in.

On July 26th resolutions were agreed to on the basic structure of the new Constitution, included in these is Resolution 6:

• 6. Resolved, That the national legislature ought to possess the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation; and, moreover, to legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the states are separately incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation.

After the whole proposal of 23 resolutions were submitted, they were referred to committee along with Charles Pinckney’s [South Carolina] Constitution proposal from May 29th, and William Patterson’s New Jersey plan from June 15th. As already mentioned William Patterson’s New Jersey plan did not contain a general welfare or power clause, though did contain the contended “incompetence'” portion, that is still reflected in the 6th resolution on July 26th. Charles Pinckney’s draft Constitution from May 29th, also did not contain a general welfare or power clause, but did contain the context of the rest of what is Article I Section Clause 1, in Article VI of his proposal.

• Art VI – The Legislature of the United states shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises. ²

Similar to the Articles of Confederation, and the same as we see in the final Constitution, Charles Pinckney [who also did sign the Constitution] follows these up with enumerated powers clauses, 20 to be exact, as well as another set of prohibitive clauses, all very near what we see in the present Constitution, including direct taxes proportioned to the number of free inhabitants, before being allowed to be done in a manner as Congress directs [lest Capitation taxes which are to remain proportional]. But nowhere in Pinckney’s proposal is any sort of general welfare or general power to Congress mentioned or implied.
Through July 26th, General Welfare or any form of it, has been used very sparingly and sporadically, and thus far used mainly in reference to the use of it in the Articles of Confederation. But debates have already taken place about other aspects of Congressional power and is it being restrained enough, but not one of these was on the term general welfare. Up to this point in the Convention it does not seem to appear that general welfare is anything more than the term that was used in the Articles of Confederation which carried no weight of power at all as discussed in part 1, because why would they debate ‘incompetence’ as being too much power to Congress and draw the ire of at least half the delegates based on the split vote for its removal, but not even mention once an opposition “general welfare” also as being a power that may give Congress too much power?

Part 1 : Part 2 : Part 3: Part 4 : Part 5 : Part 6 : Part 7

¹ James Madison Notes on the Convention of 1787
² Charles Pinckney Draft Constitution, presented on May 29th 1787. No record from the Convention of 1787 itself outlines Pinckney’s proposed Constitution, though Journals do reflect the fact he submitted one for consideration. The Draft used as his proposal was submitted by Pinckney himself in 1818 years after the Convention, when an attempt was being made to collect and preserve all information from the Convention itself by future President John Quincy Adams. The fact that limited records from the Convention details his proposals does call into question the accuracy of the Draft he submitted as to being the one actually proposed on May 29, 1787, though notes from James Wilson discovered in the early 1900’s tend to show much a what he submitted to be accurate.

General Welfare (Part 2) Debates in Convention, the First Drafts.

 

How did “General Welfare” end up in the Constitution? As noted in Part 1, the term was used in the Articles of Confederation, and a similar term was used in the Constitutions of several states. But how did it end up in the Constitution, and what was it thought of during the debates of Ratification, and not only the term general welfare, but the clause as a whole? What is perhaps the most striking aspect of general welfare during the Constitution Convention of 1787, is how little it was actually discussed, this is even more amplified considering the considerable debate among many of the other enumerated powers found in Article I Section 8.

The term General Welfare came up very early in the Convention, the first day after the rules of the Convention had been agreed upon, we see its first use. On May 29, 1787 Edmund Randolph, he Governor of Virginia rose and presented a proposed outline to a new Constitution, known commonly today as the Virginia Plan. In the very first resolution, Randolph he state the purpose of his proposal.

• 1. Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, "common defence, security of liberty and general welfare” ¹

General Welfare (Part 1) Other uses of the term in 1787.

Perhaps no single Clause is more contentious than the General Welfare clause, found in Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution,

• The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

In particular the part of “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” being the one that is most often cited as granting the Federal Government a broad and sweeping amount of power. Many things Congress does, or wishes to do are justified as being for the “General Welfare” of the United States, that many may contend it does not permit.

We also see the term in the Preamble:

• We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Two completely opposite points of view on this Article leads to either an expanded government on one side, or it leads to the conclusion of an out of control government on the other. Is General Welfare a general statement granting broad power, or is it something other than the broad powerful statement?

Originalism and its different types

Originalism is more than just one type of interpretation or Jurisprudence in regards to the Constitution. There are three main types of Originalists, Original Intent, Original Meaning, and Constructionist [textualist]. All of do have common threads, with perhaps the most important one being, the Constitution is a document of limits on the Government and is designed to protect the “inalienable rights” [Natural Rights according to Locke and Montesquieu], and it is the Judges and Justices job to determine what Law is, not what Law should be.  The methods of determining what Law is is done differently depending on the type of Originalist one may be.

What law should be to an Originalist is a function of the Legislature, it is the job of the Courts to determine how it is applied in Justice, what was the intent of Congress in the law, and whether it abides by the confines of the Constitution, WHAT LAW IS not if it is what some or that Judge or Justice would want the law to be. To an Originalist, Judges are to act only as “Umpires” to law, not judge if a law is moral or if the law is outdated, they believe morality of law is a function of the Legislature and if it is outdated, that is also the domain of the Legislature to repeal it, not the Judicial Branch to negate it, provided the law abides by the confines of the Constitution.

What is Originalism and Original Meaning

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the following remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005.
 

Justice Antonin Scalia

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s a pizzazzy topic: Constitutional Interpretation. It is however an important one. I was vividly reminded how important it was last week when the Court came out with a controversial decision in the Roper case. And I watched one television commentary on the case in which the host had one person defending the opinion on the ground that people should not be subjected to capital punishment for crimes they commit when they are younger than eighteen, and the other person attacked the opinion on the ground that a jury should be able to decide that a person, despite the fact he was under eighteen, given the crime, given the person involved, should be subjected to capital punishment.

Just to get it all started: Supreme Court Justices

(Note: This was written in July 2010, and is transcribed as was written then) 

Yesterday I read an article on Supreme Court Justices using morality to determine the Constitutionality of cases (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090708/cm_csm/ylitton). The article goes on about how one side of the issue believes the Justices should use their own value of right and wrong to help determine cases, while others believe that the Justices should be umpires and not use personal morals. I believe the later.