Is there room for interpretation in the constitution or is it quite self evident?

Question

Has our debating of things like the definition of the word "is" what has become the problem in our government "amending" or "reinterpreting" everything the forefathers were trying to protect future generations from?

Answer 1

I think our Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution would have to be "interpreted" at some point in the future, which is why they made provisions for the Judiciary Branch of government. (Along with saying that we "needed" to have a major change/revolution whenever things were not going the way they should!!!) But, to try to change it substantially, or to reinterpret its meaning is foolish and dangerous. To call it a "g-d piece of paper" is downright treasonous!

Whenever we read something from the past, be it the Bible, Shakespeare, or the Constitution, we have to consider what the society, the mores, the morals, and the temper of the times were. And, we have to look at that writing with an eye to those things. That is one of the beautiful features of our Constitution--It still fits!! If it needs "amending", we can try to pass an Amendment! Otherwise, let's just get back to following it!

Answer 2

The Constitution is a living document. Some things like the Bill of Rights are fixed and mean exactly what they say and are not open to trying to figure out what the founding fathers meant.
Some amendments were written loosely to allow for changes as needed.
The problem is that most people interpret the constitution to fit what they believe,not what it says.
To amend the constitution requires and amendment to be written and submitted to the people of the states to ratify or not ratify the amendment. If enough people vote for the amendment,then it gets added to the constitution.
There have been demands for a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the constitution,but that opens the constitution up to be completely re-written and in this day with so many special interest groups,there would be no agreement on anything.
Now define "government". The people are the government and the governed. The President,Congress,Governor and all other elected officials are the physical representatives of the people and are to act responsibly for the common good of the people.
It is up to the people to keep an eye on the elected officials and hold them accountable for their actions or lack of action.
Any law passed must be within the frame work of the U.S. Constitution and any law that is not is unconstitutional and void.
The constitution gives specific powers to the federal government and to the states,neither can take power from or transfer power to the other. Any power not given to either is reserved to the people.
Now we have every level of government claiming they have the right or power to do this or that and the people don't matter.
The politicians need to read the constitution for what it says,not what they think it says.

Answer 3

If you actually read the Constitution you will see that there is a lot of room for interpretation. Even the founding fathers argued over what the Constitution meant, as issues arose during the early days of the country.

For example, terms that have been argued about include: due process, probable cause, unreasonable searches from the Bill of Rights.

Differences of opinion also exist over the scope of Congressional power under the “Necessary and Proper” clause.

There are many examples throughout the Constitution of terms that have no definite meaning and that often referred to principles contained in the common law in existence at the time, which was judge-made law.

There is nothing simple or simplistic about the Constitution and it was not meant to be. As the founding document of a new and extremely progressive nation, it was meant to be flexible and to allow the nation to grow and develop.

Answer 4

The courts have done a bang up job of redefining much of it already in many cases. But some of it is and was intended to be self evident,unfortunately both sides have welcomed the intervention of a court even if their interpretation was clearly opposed to what was clearly written in the Constitution. And of course many refuse to look at the history around the constitution,such as the writings of the forefathers or the actions of the society at large at the time of it's writing,if these things don't support what they want to believe.

AD

Answer 5

The major problem is the checks and balances. Bush has made Executive Orders, which is just like a constitutional amendment. Congress should make laws, not the president. The Supreme Court makes rulings, also having the same affect as a constitutional amendment.

Most issues dealing with the constitution should go to the States as most issues are NOT federal.

Answer 6

I'm with Linda L on this one. I've seen people interpret the law for theior own needs too many times. If the law was less flexible we would know what to expect from our judicial system. If we don't like the law, it would be out in the open to be argues. If interpretation is involve the corrupt would use it for their own means. Discrimination would be more prevalent. Judges would say this law applies to this group but not the other. THe powerful would be more able to coerce their will.

Answer 7

When people interpret it, they do so in a manner to cater to their wants and wishes and not for we the people. When that happens, some people get to have everything their way while others are screwed even though the constitution goes against congress passing such laws.

The more and more we go down this road, the more and more the constitution phases out and the more and more we become like other countries that we are told to be filled with control freak freedom haters.

Answer 8

If you look at key issues, then you would certainly have to conclude that selected decisions are not only interpreting the Constitution, but writing law and expanding power as well.
For instance the removal of prayer from schools. Separation of church and state in the constitution was meant as a means to keep government from interfering with the Church. It was not supposed to be a segregation barrier. Yet a Liberal sued to get prayer removed from school and the S.C. fell for it. Research into the "evidence" used to support their argument clearly shows that statements in letters written by Thomas Jefferson were taken out of context while text surrounding the lines in question were either blacked out, omitted, or not submitted. Instead of asking for original, unedited copies of the letter, the S.C. accepted these false assertions as valid and made the first of many decisions that violated the scope and range of their constitutionally given powers.
No! They need to get back to the original intent our forefather's designs in the Constitution merit. In other words, stop writing laws, making policy, and arrogantly pontificating from the bench. Make decisions based on strict interpretation of the Constitution and leave party politics out of the equation.

Answer 9

Kelly, I believe the Constitution is pretty clear. Unfortunately, our government has stopped trying to interpret the Constitution and has just started ignoring it altogether. It's sad. If you are old enough to vote, I hope you'll consider the only candidate to care about the Constitution: Ron Paul. I'm not part of his campaign, I just really want him to get elected. If he doesn't, I fear for our country.

Answer 10

of course there is room for interpretation this is why the judicial branch of the government was created-- the supreme court the writers of the constitution knew things would come up in later years that they would know nothing about such as: evolution vs. creation, abortion, stem cell research, gay rights and etc. the INTENT of the constitution is what the supreme court should always look at first however there are things the writers just werent able to foresee so it can only be used as a guideline in those cases