![]() ![]() Neither, however, is it a mirror that simply reflects the thoughts and ideas of those who stand before it. The Constitution is not a legislative code bound to the time in which it was written. Still later, the Framers of the 14th Amendment were concerned not simply about the rights of black citizens to personal security, but also about the equal protection of the law for all persons within the states. Later the Bill of Rights spoke, through the Fourth Amendment, to "unreasonable searches and seizures," not merely the regulation of specific law enforcement practices of 1789. For example, they addressed commerce, not simply shipping or barter. The language they employed clearly reflects this. Their intention was to write a document not just for their names but for posterity. But the delegates at Philadelphia moved beyond the job of patching that document to write a Constitution. There is no question that the Constitutional Convention grew out of widespread dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation. Our approach does not view the Constitution as some kind of super-municipal code, designed to address merely the problems of a particular era - whether those of 1787, 1789, or 1868. But to begin, it may be useful to say what it is not. With these thoughts in mind, I would like to discuss the administration's approach to constitutional interpretation. One can talk intelligently about a "founding generation." We know who did what, when, and many times why. The Bicentennial is encouraging even more scholarship about its origins. We know a tremendous amount of the history of its genesis. In short, the Constitution is not buried in the mists of time. Others, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, committed their arguments for and against ratification, as well as their understandings of the constitution, to paper, so that their ideas and conclusions could be widely circulated, read, and understood. Several of the most important participants - including James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution - wrote comprehensive accounts of the convention. The minutes of the Convention are a matter of public record. The disputes and compromises of the Constitutional Convention were carefully recorded. ![]() We know how the Founding Fathers lived, and much of what they read, thought, and believed. The young America o the 1780's and 90's was a vibrant place, alive with pamphlets, newspapers and books chronicling and commenting upon the great issues of the day. The period surrounding the creation of the Constitution is not a dark and mythical realm. The bicentennial of our independence was just a few years ago, that of the Constitution still two years off. It is easy to forget what a young country America really is. In particular, I would like to describe in more detail this administration's approach.īefore doing so, I would like to make few commonplace observations about the original document itself. Today I would like to discuss further the meaning of constitutional fidelity. Still, whatever the differences, most participants are agreed about the same high objective: fidelity to our fundamental law. Caricatures and straw men, as one customarily finds even in the greatest debates, have made appearances. There has been some misunderstanding, some perhaps on purpose. But occasionally there has been confusion. Representatives of the three branches of the federal government have entered the debate, journalistic commentators too.Ī great deal has already been said, much of it of merit and on point. In recent weeks there have been important new contributions to this debate from some of the most distinguished scholars and jurists in the land. It invites the participation of the best minds the bar, the academy, and the bench have to offer. ![]() This debate on the Constitution involves great and fundamental issues. Unlike people of many other countries, we are free both to discover the defects of our laws, and our government through open discussion and to correct them through our political system. The current debate is sign of a healthy nation. ![]() It is not simply a ceremonial debate, but one that promises to have a profound impact on the future of our Republic. Now, as we approach the bicentennial of the framing of the Constitution, we are witnessing another debate concerning our fundamental law. From the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, to Webster and Calhoun, to Lincoln and Douglas, we find many examples. Attorney General Edwin Meese III Before the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society Lawyers DivisionĪ large part of American history has been the history of Constitutional debate. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |