On SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution

 On SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution

 Up until the 1960's there had basically been only one widely accepted view regarding the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

 Before then there had been only several instances where the U.S. Supreme Court had made decisions that were out of the normal mold, i.e., decisions based upon a strict literal reading of the pertinent part(s) of the Constitution involved in the case at hand.

 But this has changed drastically in the last decades due to the fact that there has been a tremendously increased use of judicial activism, which means that judges go beyond their legitimate role of interpreting the Constitution and settling disputes. They now often determine policy through "case law".

 The first view of the U.S. Constitution is that it means what it says in the text, and should be applied to a court decision accordingly. This approach allows for no unstated powers or rights at the national level. If it is determined that some up-dating of the Constitution is necessary, then the Amendment clause should be followed as written in Article V. This view is referred to as "strict construction-ism" or "original intent".

 The second view is that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" and should be interpreted according to current conditions. This is the theoretical basis for judicial activism, and implicitly justifies making changes in the meaning of the U.S. Constitution without following the required amendment process found in the U.S. Constitution.

 This approach to interpreting the Constitution turns it into a malleable item which can mean whatever the Justices say that it means without regard to the actual text of the document. They ascribe to the document "implied clauses" or "penumbras" that do not actually exist in the document itself.

 Ultimately, the choice is between:

1     1.)  Return to the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, by which the Founding Fathers so wisely established limited government and individual rights. Rights are preserved in this option.

 2.)   Continue down the path of judicial activism and watch our form of government and our individual rights erode right before our eyes. Rights are lost under this option, and the power of the government continually increases.

 Clearly, the current makeup of the Supreme Court. (thanks to three justices installed under President Trump’s administration), supports the former, or originalist view – change the meaning of the Constitution only by the Amendment clause as written in Article V, and not at the behest of judicial activists.

 Recent cases that SCOTUS remediated are Roe v. Wade and successor cases, which are never referenced in the constitution, affirmative action, which purports to fight racism with another form of racism, abuses of the first amendment by distorting LGBTQ++++ rights, and executive overstepping by the president concerning student loans. 

 Ray Gruszecki

July 1, 2023