Spring Break
Guest columns
Politicians should respect the constitutional processes created to amend the law of the land.
By: John Freeman
Issue date: 2/3/09 Section: Opinion
Do you remember when President George W. Bush suspended the privilege of habeas corpus for those he unilaterally declared "unlawful enemy combatants?" This was unconstitutional, and many on the left (and right) decried it as such. Many of his supporters defended this power, saying it was only being used against terrorists and that the innocent would have nothing to fear.
Even if Bush were a "benevolent dictator" incapable of abusing such power, what happens when it is in the hands of the next president? Is President Barack Obama going to declare that gun-owning dissidents are terrorists?
This kind of centralized power, subject to arbitrary change, is reminiscent of a monarchy. The founders had no intention of living under a king, elected or unelected, after fighting to escape from one. They wanted a government firmly based on the rule of law: no one person is above the law, and no one person or small group of people can change it unilaterally. This is why the founders opposed strict constructionism. Legislators can change the meaning of a law without any formal legal process by simply redefining the terms in which it was written. We see this happening today with the Welfare Clause.
No, the founders wanted certainty in the protections they had from tyranny. When it comes to constitutional interpretation, the founders would no doubt have supported originalism. They did not want to be subject to the arbitrary rule of one person (the president) or even a group of people (the Supreme Court). Even if truly honorable, fair and just leaders existed, they would not be in power forever. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Although they desired stability of governance, the founders had enough foresight to realize that their Constitution may be inadequate for future generations. Kenny Ryan, the author of "Founding Fathers," is correct in asserting that the original Constitution was imperfect; one need look no further than its tacit approval of slavery to recognize that. This is why the founders wisely provided a method for its amendment. In this way, the law could be changed as the people saw fit, while still preserving the rule of law. Although circumstances change over time, there do exist some bedrock principles that are everlasting. The founders knew that the people would be less likely than their "leaders" to discard those staples.
We need justices who will respect the Constitution's intended meaning when it was written. The intended meaning is what the people voted for, and if the people decide it is no longer suitable, it is up to them alone, through the amendment process, to alter their Constitution.
Even if Bush were a "benevolent dictator" incapable of abusing such power, what happens when it is in the hands of the next president? Is President Barack Obama going to declare that gun-owning dissidents are terrorists?
This kind of centralized power, subject to arbitrary change, is reminiscent of a monarchy. The founders had no intention of living under a king, elected or unelected, after fighting to escape from one. They wanted a government firmly based on the rule of law: no one person is above the law, and no one person or small group of people can change it unilaterally. This is why the founders opposed strict constructionism. Legislators can change the meaning of a law without any formal legal process by simply redefining the terms in which it was written. We see this happening today with the Welfare Clause.
No, the founders wanted certainty in the protections they had from tyranny. When it comes to constitutional interpretation, the founders would no doubt have supported originalism. They did not want to be subject to the arbitrary rule of one person (the president) or even a group of people (the Supreme Court). Even if truly honorable, fair and just leaders existed, they would not be in power forever. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Although they desired stability of governance, the founders had enough foresight to realize that their Constitution may be inadequate for future generations. Kenny Ryan, the author of "Founding Fathers," is correct in asserting that the original Constitution was imperfect; one need look no further than its tacit approval of slavery to recognize that. This is why the founders wisely provided a method for its amendment. In this way, the law could be changed as the people saw fit, while still preserving the rule of law. Although circumstances change over time, there do exist some bedrock principles that are everlasting. The founders knew that the people would be less likely than their "leaders" to discard those staples.
We need justices who will respect the Constitution's intended meaning when it was written. The intended meaning is what the people voted for, and if the people decide it is no longer suitable, it is up to them alone, through the amendment process, to alter their Constitution.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.
By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.
You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com