A False Interpretation Of The Constitution
The preamble of the Constitution states, “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.” This perfectly describes what the founding fathers envisioned when thinking about what the American government’s role in the people’s lives would be. According to the preamble, the role of the government is to secure the liberty, safety, and happiness of the people, which can be accomplished through a loose interpretation of the Constitution.
Evidence towards the security of the …show more content…
This is evident in the design of the Constitution itself. It is clear to see that it was the framers’ intention to create a Constitution that is purposefully vague, as James Madison states the reasoning behind the document’s language in Federalist #37. Madison states, “All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.” This means that Madison believed that all laws, although written with deliberation, are purposefully kept ambiguous until the meaning is discussed by a group. It is very likely that he believed that the Constitution, the supreme law of the country, should be written the same way. In the Constitution’s case, the group that discusses the meaning of the law is the judiciary branch of the government, whose job is to interpret the Constitution. A Supreme Court who interprets the Constitution loosely often secures more liberties of the country’s citizens, one of the factors in the government’s role. An example of a case where this can be seen is Roe V. Wade. This case secured, in a 7-2 decision, that the right to an abortion was a fundamental right of the American people. The argument for the majority opinion was that, even though the word abortion or privacy is not found in the Constitution, "the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”. In other words, the court used the ambiguous language of the Constitution to determine that a “right of privacy” was
Evidence towards the security of the …show more content…
This is evident in the design of the Constitution itself. It is clear to see that it was the framers’ intention to create a Constitution that is purposefully vague, as James Madison states the reasoning behind the document’s language in Federalist #37. Madison states, “All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.” This means that Madison believed that all laws, although written with deliberation, are purposefully kept ambiguous until the meaning is discussed by a group. It is very likely that he believed that the Constitution, the supreme law of the country, should be written the same way. In the Constitution’s case, the group that discusses the meaning of the law is the judiciary branch of the government, whose job is to interpret the Constitution. A Supreme Court who interprets the Constitution loosely often secures more liberties of the country’s citizens, one of the factors in the government’s role. An example of a case where this can be seen is Roe V. Wade. This case secured, in a 7-2 decision, that the right to an abortion was a fundamental right of the American people. The argument for the majority opinion was that, even though the word abortion or privacy is not found in the Constitution, "the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”. In other words, the court used the ambiguous language of the Constitution to determine that a “right of privacy” was