Introduction
In a time of great pressure, men have taken refuge in blame. It is possible that something comes out of this action. But it is definite that the product of the blame game is frustration. Perhaps a different approach might produce better results. From the financial crisis to gay rights; president Obama’s birth certificate to campaign finance; separation of church and state to Miranda rights, controversy is all over. Where does our constitution come in? Given that so much remains unsettled, should the constitution be implemented as it is or should the courts go back to history and search for the original meaning? In this short presentation, I will argue the position that the courts should apply the constitution as it is and not go back to the original meaning. The following are the reasons in support of this position.
Main text
Going back to history to search for the original meaning of the constitution will mean that the progress that society has made will be undone when the old applications of the constitution are unearthed by the courts (Wolfe 78).One undeniable point is that the society as we see it today is not the same as what our great grandfathers experienced. It is not even what our fathers went through. Human beings are dynamic and the world has changed a great deal. It is so appropriate that this dynamism has been recognized and the new changes have been accommodated by assigning new meanings to old codes so as to serve the new reality. Is it possible that what a cross meant to a man one hundred years ago means that same today? This is hardly possible. During the time of Saint Paul, a cross signified the followership of Christ only or anything pertaining to religion. But today rap and hip hop musicians have crosses dangling from their necks for different reasons. This is an example of how much times have changed.
Leaving the above aside, a government is only legitimate if it is of the people, by the people and for the people. It is therefore required that the people make a decision on the kind of laws they want to have. Who then has the power to search for the original meaning of the constitution? Maybe it is the courts. But what if the people are satisfied with the meaning of the constitution as it is at the moment? This simply means that the people have decided on the form of government that is supposed to exist and the nature of laws that will govern them. It is therefore not in the interest of the people that the courts search for the original meaning of the constitution and apply it in deciding the cases involving the people. This is especially not acceptable if the people are satisfied with current interpretation. The sovereignty of the people is the bulwark of democracy and therefore must be upheld at all times. Also, it should be forgotten that words and sentences are mere symbols. The meanings that people attach to them make the difference. Given that the people have attached certain meanings to the words and symbols in the constitution as it is now, it is only proper that the people make the decision to change the meaning of the rules of the rules themselves. The courts’ work should be to apply the law and not to make it (Wolfe 23).
Conclusion
From the above, it is clear that searching for the original meaning of the constitution should not be the job of the courts. It is too late in the twenty first century when so many things have changed and the work of the courts is to apply the law.
Work Cited
Wolfe, Christopher. Judicial Activism. (2nd ed.).New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.1997.Print.