Founding Fathers Research Paper

Zach Blazer
Final Speech
May 22, 2013
Thesis Finale The Founding Fathers of the United States created a masterpiece. They were able to create a government held together by a Constitution that was run by the people, and was also able to keep the government in check by building a system that was able to change with time. The Founding Fathers were able to pull this off because they understood that human nature has not changed through history, and that people will look to tear down others in order to bring themselves more power. Because of this they needed a system that would limit the government, but also give them enough power to maintain peace within a nation. They achieved this goal, or at least came very close to it, through the Amendment
process. This process involved allowing the Constitution to be remolded to fit the needs of the nation. For an Amendment to be proposed, both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote, or Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention. After the proposal has been made, three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. Now think about that for a second. What did I even just say? You probably cant even remember the process I just described because it was too hard to listen to. How can we remember and follow directions that are too complex to remember for less than a minute? But this was part of the Founding Fathers’ plan. They meant for the process to be extremely lengthy and arduous. The Founding Fathers did not want the government to be able to give itself too much power, or let the shifty desires of the people to make a drastic change to the law. The Constitution therefore could remain relevant as long as America stands, and be a safeguard for the people. Therefore, since the Amendments are the building blocks of our entire system of government, the Supreme Court has the responsibility to interpret the Amendments strictly, in order to preserve the purpose of the Constitution and to maintain the ideals of the first generation of America. The Amendments state clearly the rights of the people, and if the government ignores these rights, they are ignoring over two hundred years of rulings, and the words of the Constitution. To understand both sides of the debate, it must be understood what is meant by strict and loose interpretations.
A loose interpretation would be to interpret the Amendments in such a way that they no longer mean what the Founding Fathers originally meant, and also in order to force them into being relevant in a topic that they were never meant for. On the other hand, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is one that takes the Amendments for exactly what they say, and takes into account the limitations of what the Founding Fathers could have meant for them, and does not go beyond the bounds of those limitations. An example to display the difference between the two rulings, is the Jones v. United States case. A brief summary of the case is that Jones was a drug dealer, and the FBI had placed tracking devices on his car without warrants. When they finally gathered enough evidence to arrest him, they brought him before a court, and it was undetermined since no evidence gained without a warrant, or proper procedure, could be used against him. Because there was no proper evidence against him, he was brought to the Supreme Court, and they ruled him innocent, on account of the fact that the evidence was gained without proper procedure. The significance of this case was not that he went free, but how the court had ruled that he should go free. The Justices split up into mainly two different ways of ruling the case. One side went with a strict interpretation to make their ruling and one side followed a loose interpretation. The two sides were written by the judges Scalia, and Alito. Scalia took a strict interpretation, and argued that the search was without a warrant, and by going off of the exact meaning of the word search, concluded that the evidence could not be used since it was illegitimate. Alito position was specifically, that the original, trespass-based meaning of search under the Fourth Amendment did not apply to electronic situations like the one that
occurred in the case. He further argued that following the doctrine changes in Katz, technical trespass leading to the gathering of evidence was no longer necessary or sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with a purpose in mind, and this purpose is the key to interpreting the Amendments. They wrote the Amendments to secure the rights of the people and to keep the government in check, but also to give the Constitution room to change, in such a way that would benefit both parties without infringing on anyone’s rights. In order to keep a grasp of this purpose, the Amendments must be interpreted strictly because it is the only way to avoid falling astray of what our country has been built on. A loose interpretation gives room for people to redefine and re-imagine the Constitution in any way that will serve their own personal desires, even if it harms everyone else. There is no alternative to a strict interpretation other than a loose interpretation. Therefore in order to prove that that a strict interpretation is the one we ought to have, I will have to prove that a loose interpretation is not preferable to a strict interpretation of the Amendments. I will make this case in four steps. I will first prove that it was the intentions of the Founding Fathers to avoid a loose interpretation. Then I will prove that a loose interpretation inherently has many dangers to it. Third, that a strict interpretation not only avoids these dangers, but also brings benefits to our nation and the individual. Then finally, after I explain both the purpose, and the results of interpreting the Amendments both strictly and loosely pertaining to the recent debates over gun bans, I will compare the two sides and show why a strict interpretation is far superior to a loose interpretation. The Second Amendment States, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This Amendment has been heavily debated because of the wording and the different possible interpretations of the specifics in the two clauses. The first of these clauses, which states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” is the prefatory clause, meaning it is simply the interpretive part of the Amendment and does not capture the meaning of the Amendment in and of itself. The prefatory clauses were simply added in by the Founding Fathers to give a reason for the Amendments themselves. The more important of these two clauses is the operative clause. The operative clause states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This clause can stand completely independent of the prefatory clause, and still serve its purpose of restricting the government’s power in such a way that would keep it from ever being able to take this right away from the people. The importance of distinguishing the prefatory and operative clause, is that the strict and loose parties understand the meaning of each clause in different ways. A strict interpretation, at first, would appear to demand that both clauses be seen as equal, rather than the prefatory clause being less important, while a loose interpretation would, at first, seem to be prone to taking into account only the operative clause according to the definitions already given of loose and strict. The reason this is false, is that this understanding is failing to take into account the purpose of the Amendments and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, which are crucial to a strict interpretation. So why distinguish between the two clauses? Well, its because the Founding Fathers intentions, and the purpose of the Amendments are in favor of a strict interpretation of only the operative clause. Their intentions can be inferred by their circumstances during the time the Amendments were written. The Second Amendment was key to Americans during the period that the Constitution was drafted, because it gave Americans a means of protecting themselves. The government had almost no ability to protect the people in dangerous situations. The only means a person would have to keep themselves safe was their own power. Owning a gun was what gave Americans a means of self defense. Therefore, the Second Amendment was meant to be read strictly, since the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens from the criminals, and also to protect themselves from the government if need be. Now I will prove that a loose interpretation of this Amendment is dangerous to Americans. A loose interpretation of the Second Amendment would result in people giving up their freedom in order to gain dependant security. An example of this dependant security is the procedures taken to secure peoples’ safety on an airplane. At every airport in the United States, anyone can be taken out and searched to make sure they aren’t a threat to others in the airport. This is done to protect the safety of the people, but in the process giving up some of the peoples’ freedoms. People willingly subject themselves to this however, because it is the best solution to a safety issue for them-selves. The difference between this scenario and following through with a loose interpretation of the Second Amendment is that if we were to give up our right to bear arms, we are sacrificing our security, with no safety in return. A second flaw with banning guns is if the government were to take away this right, the only people giving up their weapons would be the law abiding citizens, giving criminals a wider range of opportunities to act unjustly, which is wrong because it is taking away the individual’s ability to fulfill their duties to protect their families. This exact situation occurred in parts of Australia recently, which resulted in the crime rate to sky-rocket. Murders committed with guns increased by 19%, home invasions increased by 21%, assaults committed with guns increased by 28%, and armed robberies quickly escalated with an increase of 69% in single year. Gun bans have taken away the safety of citizens, and they have also taken away their rights. Since a ban on guns would take away a right, without any benefit to the individual, this act is not only unconstitutional; it ends up serving no purpose in the end. This is where a loose interpretation will lead us. It would be moving away from the purpose of the Constitution, which is to keep the citizens rights safe and limit the government’s power over us. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution,” he meant that the constraints manifest in a written charter would act as safeguards against a governmental usurpation of powers that belonged to the people. The Founding Fathers understood the risks of taking away the citizen’s right to bear arms, and feared it because it would open up the doors to tyranny. It is now clear that a loose interpretation of the Second Amendment would compromise both our freedoms and safety. A strict interpretation would avoid this issue, because it would avoid any danger posed by a loose interpretation that would result in giving the government power that it does not have. Aside from avoiding dangers, a strict interpretation is also the better of two options for a second reason. As we allow the government to nullify rights, we are essentially saying that we are too lazy to have to defend ourselves, and we would rather put our fate into the hands of the government simply because it is easier. This shift from democracy is moving towards a form of tyranny, where we as citizens no longer have the freedom to rule ourselves, and thus the government goes above the law. A loose interpretation then is not only dangerous because it causes avoidable problems, but it is willingly moving towards a more government-centered system where we give the government more power so we have less work. Therefore a strict interpretation of the Amendments is less dangerous and more beneficial because in that mindset, we are able to retain our right and be more self-sufficient. People have corrupted the view of our rights and brought forth their own ideas of how we ought to go about our everyday lives. The rights that we were given by the Founding Fathers were given to us out of the duties that we had before rights ever played into the lives of the first generation of America. The rights flowed out of our duties, in such a way that allowed us to fulfill our duties, but without giving unnecessary rights to the people. An example is the Second Amendment, which was made to protect men and their families from any possible dangers. Their duty was to protect their family and property, and since the government had no way of protecting the people, they gave the people the right to bear arms. This right was essential in fulfilling the duty of the American people, and all other rights flowed out similarly, based on the need for the rights, rather than the desire for the rights. As time moved on, people took these rights for granted and assumed that they were entitled to other rights that were never given to them. This idea came from allowing the Amendments to be interpreted loosely; since people started thinking that they had control over what their rights should be. The minds of the people began to turn from their duties and move towards desires. So why should a Christian care about this debate, or is the debate relevant to the Christian at all? In the simplest answer, yes this is relevant, if for no other reason than that Romans 13 clearly states that we should submit to our authorities, and since a loose interpretation leads to us changing the meaning behind the Supreme Law of America, Christians should steer clear of breaking the law in order to honor God. However, the answer is much more complex than just because “the Bible said so”. The main reason to go the strict route is that it takes the justice of sin most seriously, and by doing this, we are likening ourselves to the image of God by striving for perfection. A strict interpretation does this by keeping the people under the law, which was made by Christian men who desired to have a country based on the living, breathing God. They wrote the Constitution with the intention that we would not move away from this goal. By keeping a strict interpretation, we avoid moving away from a Christian-grounded root, which was planted into our country from the very beginning. A loose interpretation allows cultural values to step in and take over our laws by twisting them to allow men to become more sinful and self-centered. This is not only a Christian application, but also one of Plato’s observations, which he described in his degeneration of man theory. Therefore, this question is crucial in the life of a Christian, because we have the responsibility of, first and foremost, obeying God’s Word, but also because we have the responsibility to be the leaders of the people around us, and if we allow men to harm themselves by shedding a false light on the Constitution, we are not fulfilling our duties as Christians. I have proven that a loose interpretation is dangerous to man’s natural rights, and that a strict interpretation is superior. No solution made by man will be perfect, and a strict interpretation evades most of the dangers posed by a loose interpretation and also leaves no extra threats that a loose interpretation would not pose. Through this, I have proved that man has both the responsibility to themselves, and as Christians, to God, to interpret the Amendments in such a way that leaves as little room for us to fall astray as possible. The only way to sufficiently accomplish this is by interpreting the Amendments the same way every time, without falling astray of the original meaning. Therefore, a strict interpretation wins out, by posing fewer threats and bringing the most benefits to the table, since the only two possibilities of interpretation are loose and strict. In conclusion, in order to preserve the rights of the people and of the state, the Supreme Court has the responsibility to interpret the Amendments strictly, in order to preserve the purpose of the Constitution, and to maintain the ideals of the first generation of America.