i need a new post, and i just finished an essay for my constitutional law class that i think might be interesting, so i'm gonna post it here. what the heck, i'll post the one i wrote earlier this semester, too. if this is boring, cut me some slack. it's late, and even owen thinks i should be asleep. : )
Tavern Essay #1 on Constitutional Amendment:
Although I have been a U.S. citizen my whole life, I have only had a formal role in the process of constitutional amendment for the past four and a half years. However, even once I turned 18, I still had little concept of the process, much less of my own role in it. In my senior year of high school, a globally-focused course for my International Baccalaureate diploma replaced the standard Government course, so my education on our political system came piecemeal, as I absorbed what was available to me through the media, friends, and family. My interest in current political issues and their long-term codification was always present, but—like so many frustrated or inactive citizens in the U.S.—I felt disconnected from the processes that shape our social contract, whether they were legislative or constitutional developments.
For me, this sense of disconnection began to dissolve during Howard Dean’s campaign for the presidency, in which he reminded everyone of the political power each of us holds and can harness, if we involve and organize ourselves. Since that time, I have added a Government major at U.T. and sought to be as well-informed about changes to our political system as reasonably possible. Among the most important of such changes are those to our Constitution, our social contract and the foundation of our community. Today I know that it is unlikely I will ever have a direct vote for or against a constitutional amendment, since the far simplest and most common route of amending the Constitution is initiation by Congress and ratification by state legislatures. However, I can now clearly see my role in constitutional amendment, and it reflects the republican organization of our government. My role is one of lobbying my elected Representatives and Senators, federal and state, to take action in the manner I support. Of course, who knows? If Congress ever submits amendments to state conventions, or if there is ever a national constitutional convention, perhaps I might have a more direct role than I would currently expect and serve as a delegate to such a convention.
On the whole, I believe the process taking place with proposals for amendments is a healthy and safe one. Because it is our social contract, the Constitution should be read and, ideally, understood by all U.S. inhabitants, I am becoming more and more convinced. This need for a universal agreement on our country’s foundation is one excellent reason to keep the Constitution as unchanging as is reasonable. The Texas Constitution is a perfect example of the public disorientation that occurs when the social contract is constantly altered and grows to an unwieldy length. But an even better reason for the stringency of the amendment process is simply to protect our entire socio-political system from being swayed by each and every whim of the country. The Constitution should be our core set of ideals and desires for the U.S., and it would become meaningless if pieces were easily—and therefore often—removed and added. Conversely, I am of course glad the Constitution does leave room for alteration to keep up with the overarching modernization of thought; a flexible but firm constitution will endure the longest.
Despite my overall support, I nevertheless feel typically republican processes are only as good as the representation itself. As we strive to improve our representation of all U.S. citizens—not just the wealthy or the racial majority—our constitutional amendment process will grow even stronger, until the day the U.S. Constitution embodies the social contract that serves everyone united within it equally and excellently.
Tavern Essay #2 on Constitutional Development:
In my view, American constitutional development is not only the concrete alteration of the Constitution’s text, but also the evolving interpretations of the words already in the Constitution. Therefore, constitutional development may be the effect of the formal amendment process, or it may occur through new judicial decisions. Because it is the highest court in our nation, the Supreme Court usually provides the most visible and lasting interpretive constitutional development. Specifically, the Court provides an interpretive role by deciding which constitutional passages are relevant to the cases before it and then determining the meaning of those passages. If the Court’s decision overthrows a previously held opinion, or provides an opinion where none previously existed, constitutional development has taken place.
The U.S. Constitution is an ideological document. We do not prescribe every operating procedure nor describe any non-fundamental structure within our Constitution; such topics belong to the realm of statutory law. Due to the nature of the Constitution, therefore, any constitutional development represents a significant ideological shift in American thinking. For example, the expansion of civil rights for minorities and women via constitutional amendment both reflected changing attitudes about equality and triggered further realignment of beliefs. Besides the ideological implications, constitutional development can also have a powerful impact on everyday life. For instance, constitutional development can massively reduce of our freedom of speech (e.g. Abrams v. U.S., 1919) or noticeably broaden the President’s power to deploy Americans for military action without Congressional approval (e.g. The Prize Cases, 1863). By its very definition, constitutional development entails significant implications.
Since 1981 (when I was born), only one amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been ratified, and I was too young at the time to have any real grasp of the process. I have, however, been witness to changing interpretations of the Constitution. As I discussed in our previous Tavern essay, I felt generally disconnected from political developments until recently, but news of certain issues before the courts have shown up on my radar nonetheless. Such constitutional issues up for development (or perhaps regression) that have caught my attention include the separation of church and state (specifically, school prayer and the pledge of allegiance), equal protection (specifically, gay marriage), freedom of expression (specifically, campaign finance reform), and the rights of the criminally accused (specifically, the death penalty). As the courts have formed decisions on these topics, I have seen constitutional development, although I have not always known to give it that label.
In fact, I believe the entire process of constitutional development is rather obscure to the average citizen. Probably most citizens are aware that the Constitution can be amended, but I doubt many know the pathways for amendment. In turn, few likely know how to influence constitutional amendment. Likewise, I believe the average citizen probably underestimates the fundamental role the Supreme Court plays in transforming constitutional text into our country’s functional reality. And so, in all of these recent issues in constitutional development, the average citizen is under-informed and under-motivated to seek involvement, given the gravity of the issues. Of course, our Constitution was written to be self-protecting from the whims of the people, to be changed only in accordance with sweeping ideological change. Therefore, the average citizen’s minimal role in constitutional development seems appropriate. Only ideological change of the greatest magnitude, urgency, and importance (as judged by those participating the American social contract) merits constitutional development, and it is precisely such change that will gather the public momentum needed to elicit constitutional development.
okay, time for bed.
kisses and hugs,
julie
