How do the justices on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution?

The Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution. What it does is rule on cases based on their understanding of the Constitution and of precedent. They never directly interpret the Constitution itself, but the understanding and application of it.

A few examples from history may be instructive.

In Dred Scot v. Sanford (1857), the Court ruled that, since the Framers had never considered the possibility of African-Americans being citizens, they had no civil rights due to citizens. This was literally the law of the land- literally, the meaning of the US Constitution- until a little matter called the Civil War helped to settle things to the contrary. After the war, the 13th Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment (1868) conferred citizenship on formerly enslaved people, and the 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting rights to them. These Amendments, In combination with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 overturned Dred Scot v Sanford.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court ruled that racial segregation under state laws was legal, provided facilities for each race could be said to be equal. This led to the Jim Crow Era, during which “colored facilities” existed alongside of “white facilities.” That the colored facilities were clearly inferior to the white ones was irrelevant, as long as one could argue that the two were functionally the same (after all, the colored water fountain gives water, too, doesn’t it?). This was summed up by “separate but equal is legal.” Again, this was the meaning of the US Constitution from 1896–1954. Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which specifically ruled that segregated black and white schools were unconstitutional, as separate but equal was not legal.

I could cite other cases, but you should get the point. And, course, all of this is a ridiculous oversimplification, and I invite an attorney to expand upon it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why is the US pursuing socialism?

Image
  “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride Before one can argue about something, I think it’s a good idea to define what it means, yes? Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.” So, let’s be crystal clear about something: no major political party in the US is promoting collective ownership and administration of production of goods. None of them . Supporting a higher marginal tax rate on the rich is not socialism. If you don’t understand marginal taxation**, that indicates you’re not able to contribute intelligently to this discussion, so please, kindly, shut up. Support for unions is not socialism. Support for the some sort of health care reform is not, in and o...
Read more

Pros + Cons of Restoring the Draft

Pro: huge increase in easily available troops Pro: given that going through the draft & military experience was a common experience for young American men*+, it provided an opportunity for people from a vast variety of socio-economic groups & regions to connect.** Con: it's generally accepted that the current, all volunteer force is one of the best, if not the best, militaries in the world. Conscript armies are never as well-trained as all-volunteer armies, even if they are larger. The horrendous performance of Russian's enormous, conscript-heavy force is a perfect example of this. Con: related to the previous point, conscripts, by and large, don't want to be there. This absolutely relates to the above con to a draft. The combination of these first two cons is a major reason why most in the leadership of the US military don't want the reinstatement of the draft. Con: again, related to the above points, the elites of any society have always ha...
Read more

Are there any parts of the Constitution that can be exceptions? For example, can free speech be an exception?

This question is not clearly phrased, but the poster sees to be asking if there are exceptions to various parts of the US Constitution. Short answer: yes Long answer: strap in for a bit of a ride, friends. A main job of the Judicial Branch is to clarify exactly what is meant by each word in the Constitution. To describe in very general terms the way the 3 co-equal branches of the government work: Legislative Branch: Writes laws Executive Branch: Enacts laws Judicial Branch: Determines if the laws written by the Legislative Branch and enacted by the Executive Branch obey the Constitution By design, the Judiciary’s job is far more subtle than that of the other two Branches. Let’s take two kinds of laws that seem easy to understand, but wind up being anything but easy: freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. The First Amendment reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abri...
Read more