Wouldn’t the civility we need in American dialogue show up if we realized that while nostalgia may form our vision of America, that vision is not the same for everyone? Nowhere is the lack of civility, and intelligent dialogue for that matter, more present then surrounding the U.S. Constitution. So many today argue about the need to “protect the constitution,” “uphold the constitution,” you get the idea.
There is this vision that the common man sat around a table illumined by celestial light and waited for God to speak to them like Moses on the mountain and wrote a constitution. Certainly the “common man” would not have proposed that only land-owners could vote right? Would one of our own “regular Joes” propose only a person with a certain net worth could serve as president or that the president should serve for life? Most importantly, this idea that the writers intended their document to be upheld exactly like it was written for all time has no foundation in reality or fact. The Federalist Papers, the documents holding the first hand accounts and debates of those drafting the constitution while they were writing it, flat out say the constitution should evolve, change, and grow as the needs of society change.
This fact is proven in many ways. The first and foremost proof is the clause of the constitution written during the 1787 convention that gagged congress from addressing slavery until well into the 1800’s. Doesn’t this prove that the writers of the constitution expected the constitutional principles to evolve at some point? They had to put in the slavery clause in order to get South Carolina to go along with the document overall and knew at a future date the Country would change this. What about the 3/5ths clause? Doesn’t this suggest that the framers knew in an uncanny way that certain principles would evolve over time and the people would need a constitution with the room to evolve? Sometimes the Supreme Court says “we are not ready” and strikes down a law, sometimes they say “we are ready” and they uphold or enhance a law. These are essentially the issues, which they are appointed to discern.
There is an old saying that the constitutional convention was attended by the “well fed, well read, and well wed.” The Constitution was drafted by 55 individuals at least 35 of whom were lawyers. Nineteen never even showed up . The point is, the every day American had no part in this process and were purposely excluded because it was thought the average citizens were not informed enough or disciplined enough to stay learned about their government. It is not until later, evolving through various historical periods, that the average citizens becomes part of the dialogue of government. The document itself becomes ours throughout our 230-Year history as the court evolves and we change.
Some sets of Justices throughout Supreme Court history have interpreted the Constitution literally and others have come in and completely overturned precedent. Marbury vs Madison sets the courts precedent to review the constitutionality of a case and then Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education, Bush vs. Gore, are all instances where the court either shocked by dramatically upholding, or going against the Constitution to meet the changing societal needs. One cannot treat the Constitution like it should s
