What About the Constitution?

In a Thanksgiving Day tweet, Trump once again berated the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit saying, “We want the Constitution as written.” Earlier in the week he called the 9th circuit “a lawless disgrace,”  (this comment came after a federal judge ordered the administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States).  Trump’s tirade about an “Obama judge” brought Chief Justice John Roberts into the fray saying, “We do not have Obama judges, Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges…The independent judiciary is something we should all be grateful for.”  Is the judiciary as independent as Roberts’ claims, or has it become political? The many 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court makes one wonder about Roberts’ claim of impartiality.  The recent battle over Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation speaks volumes on this subject.

The Constitution is seen as the “bible” for our democracy.  Just as there are different philosophies of interpretation for the Bible among religious folk, so there are different philosophies of interpretation for the Constitution.  What does Mr. Trump mean when he says, “We want the Constitution as written?”  A “strict construction” interpretation of the Constitution tries to adhere to the literal words of the document.  “Originalism” is yet another philosophy of interpretation that tries to interpret the Constitution according to the intent of those who wrote it. Then, there is the “loose construction” philosophy of interpretation that believes the Constitution was intended to be a living document interpreted by each new generation.  Each member of the judiciary has his or her own philosophy of interpretation and acts accordingly.  Is this being impartial?  I think so.   Is this being independent?  Yes, I think so.  Does this mean there are Obama, Trump, Bush or Clinton judges?  No, it means there are various philosophies of interpretation and each justice has chosen his or her philosophy long before being appointed to a federal bench.  

The issue becomes complicated when we begin to suggest that there is only “one way” to interpret the Constitution.  Some say they believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, that they want the Bible as written—the  Bible that says in Psalm 137:9: “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”  Thurgood Marshall said in response to the adoration of the  “…Constitution as written,” that it was “defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today.”  How we interpret the Bible and how we interpret the Constitution makes a world of difference in how we view people.