Issue date: 1/29/09 Section: Opinion

Media Credit: Chris Griffin [Click to enlarge]

Much has been made of Barack Obama's election to the office of president of the United States. Recently, the focus has been on his handling of the economy, Guantanamo Bay and the reversing of midnight orders. What has not been discussed is what action Obama will take in an area that could be his most lasting chance at the change he desires - nominating a judge to the Supreme Court.

During the next four years, it is likely that at least one Supreme Court justice will need replacement. When Obama is reviewing the résumés of those who wish to have the prestigious office, I hope he makes sure not to nominate a strict constructionist to the court.

A strict constructionist is a judge who adheres strictly to the original wording of the Constitution when making decisions in court. They look to the Constitution as an unquestionable document written by our infallible Founding Fathers, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

The Founding Fathers were not the demi-gods that they are perceived to be by the typical modern American. Names like Hamilton, Washington and Jefferson; they were all great men, but they made their mistakes and they had the humility to admit it.

Jefferson owned slaves, Washington wasn't a very good general, Hamilton even got shot in a duel; not exactly modern role model material.

The Constitution, written by these imperfect men, is likewise marked with imperfection. The first constitution that the Founding Fathers wrote up didn't even last a full decade. They realized they had messed up and scrapped it to write a new one.

The second go round attempt at writing a constitution produced the one we use today, but even that one immediately needed to be remedied by the Bill of Rights.

The best part is the Supreme Court doesn't even have any power in the Constitution, the only reason it holds the power of judicial review that it wields is because of precedent that was established in an 1803 court case Marbury v. Madison. A strict constructinist logically shouldn't even participate in the modern legal duties that the Supreme Court carries through.

When taking this all into account it is clear that strict constructionism is never what the founders of this country wanted in the leaders who followed them. As time goes by, society and technology change. Ideas from the original Constitution like the 3/5 clause are best forgotten, and people who want to keep the nation tied to the original Constitution are living in denial of 200 years of history and change.

America needs to adapt to the world we live in. Progressive judges are needed to keep the country ahead of the curve, not anchored down behind it.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools