11-4-03

      	The Constitution’s Different Interpretations

      The Constitution of the United States was created in such a way that Americans would be able to interpret its meaning from several view points. However, Americans have misunderstood  the true meanings of certain Amendments that make up the Constitution. Specific issues such as gun control, unreasonable searches, abortion, and stipulations for serving office, have been interpreted differently from one generation to another. Obviously, the political atmosphere of the United States has greatly changed since our Constitution was written. But, if we as a people begin to make exceptions and changes to this document and the building blocks of our democracy, then we are perhaps in a small way undermining our nations political ideals. Although the changes we make  may seem small to start with, such changes could later lead to larger compromises within our society.
      
      The Constitution was written over two centuries ago and since then it has presented major controversies with the content listed within it. While the government continues to infringe upon our rights and freedoms, there will always be a reason to question our guaranteed Constitutional rights. James Madison was one of the founding fathers of the Constitution. Madison emphasized the fact that the Constitution contained unclearness in its text and would undergo constant criticism in the near future. Madison along with the other founding fathers advocated that the “original meaning” of the Constitution would always be enforced, even if the content became scrambled from its original context. In today’s society Americans either have a strict view or a bendable view with the interpretation of the text within the Constitution. Americans with a strict or strong view believe that the original meaning of the text should be interpreted, while Americans with a bendable view believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the day and age of the world. Craig states that, “ the Constitution of the ‘dead’ will have to reach a compromise with the Constitution of the ‘living’ in order for our nation to be at ease” (Lerner). If this philosophy was carried through on all cases dealing with the interpretive text of each Amendment, then Americans are better off just throwing the entire Constitution out the window. As an American I would never conceive of throwing the beloved doctrine of our rights out the window, nor would I ever be subject into rejecting the original meaning of each and every one of our Amendments. I am a firm believer of interpreting the Constitution from the original meaning of the text. The original meaning of the text within the Constitution must remain intact, if we, as Americans are to keep our heritage. As Americans keep subjecting themselves to compromising and changing the Amendments listed within our Constitution, eventually this will lead to further changes in the building blocks of our society and democracy. 
      
      Gun control has become an issue in today’s society, because an abundance of Americans feel that not just every individual should have the right to own a concealed weapon. These specific Americans believe that only authority figures, such as police, military personnel, and security guards should have the Constitutional right to own a gun. They feel that crime rates would become lower and society would become safer from harm. On the other hand, a majority of Americans feel that every individual has the right to own a concealed a weapon. The Second Amendment states that, “Americans have the right to bear arms” (13). Under this amendment there are no specific restrictions or limits as to who has the right to own a gun. Even if Americans do make gun control laws which ensure only authority figures the right to own guns, we will still have crime. Criminals will always find ways to receive concealed weapons, wether or not measures are passed to control the use of who can operate and own a fire-arm. Police are also only so few in numbers. Therefore, Americans should see that their Constitutional right to own a gun is intact, for it may be are only means of self-defense in a criminal act. By beginning to make exceptions and changes to this document, we are undermining our ideals which could lead to larger compromises and changes in our society. Americans are not the only ones responsible for the controversy and different interpretations of the Constitution. Our government also plays a negative role by not sticking strictly to the original meaning of the text, and by trying to make compromises with our guaranteed freedoms which are suppose to never become infringed upon.  
      
      The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states that, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”(13). Our freedoms specifically listed within the text of the Fourth Amendment, constantly arises controversy in today’s society as a result of September 11, 2001. The government, soon after the attack on 9/11, forced the Patriot Act into law. The Patriot Act gave the federal government questionable new powers to pursue and apprehend terrorists. Although the bill is an attempt to eradicate terrorism from the world and to protect Americans from possible terrorists, it interferes with our freedoms listed within the Constitution. The freedoms in which the bill devalues are the freedom of speech and the freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Patriot Act gives the government permission to act without reason to issue searches of persons and places they feel might be potentially dangerous. Some Americans view this action to be necessary for the protection of ourselves and our families. These Americans feel that the protections of our rights are worth far more than the security of our freedoms. The other portion of Americans feel that we are sacrificing our freedoms for security against terrorism and yet, these freedoms are what makes up security within our lives. In other words, we are sacrificing one type of security for another and as a result we are losing more than were gaining. James Madison along with the other founding fathers of the Constitution would have frowned upon the idea of compromising our freedoms for the sake of national security. Americans with a strict view of the Constitution feel that it must remain intact. If we, as Americans allow ourselves to be subjected in compromising our freedoms in a small way, then in time the compromising of our freedoms will just continue to grow and become larger. If this continues to occur, our offspring may live in a world where freedom is thought of as merely a luxury and not as a guaranteed right. 
      
      Abortion has always been controversial with the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, between Americans and our government. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states in part, “ nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (14). Does the Amendment imply that a fetus is a person? This is a question in which a number of Americans today are considering to great length. A number of Americans believe that the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to the protection of an unborn fetus. They strongly feel that the part of the Fourteenth Amendment which specifies that no state shall deprive any person of life implies to everyone, even an unborn fetus. A portion of other Americans feel that the Constitution has no say in a subject, such as abortion. These Americans would be considered as having a strict view in regards to the Constitution because they stay primarily attached to the original meaning of the interpretation of the text. The topic of abortion is a moral issue and moral issues should not be discussed in a political document, such as the Constitution of the United States. For Americans with a strict view of the Fourteenth Amendment, they feel that it deals strictly with people accused of crimes. In either case, Americans are not deciding if abortion is right, instead they are deciding wether it’s related to the text of the Constitution or not. Those Americans with a bendable view of the Constitution might assume that this document could in fact imply some kind of notion relating to the subject of abortion. However, if we, as Americans scramble the text of the Constitution around and change its underlying meaning in which the founding fathers of the Constitution advocated, then our nation will continue to dismantle the document in which its purpose was to grant us security within our lives. The question of changing the interpretation of the text within the Constitution has not solely dealt with just Americans but also with our governments doctrine. 
      
      Recently, a man by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger, became elected as the governor of California. Americans have been discussing wether or not he should have the right to run for president in a few years. Arnold is a decedent of Austria and is not a born citizen of the United States of America. A majority of Americans feel that if Arnold can be governor of California then why should he be denied the right to run in a presidential election for the Presidency of the United States. They feel that the Constitution of today should not be followed according to the underlying principles of the past. On the other hand, a majority of Americans feel that Article ii, Section 1 of the Constitution should be taken into account according to its original nature. Article ii, Section 1 of the Constitution states that, “it requires the natural born chief executive to be at least 35 years old and a resident within the United States for fourteen years”(56). If we, as Americans ignore the text inside the Constitution and let Arnold run for president in the near future, then other issues such as age to become president could eventually come to be questioned and possibly even changed to an earlier age. Could you ever imagine having an eighteen-year-old President as the leader of our nation? This could become reality if Americans continue to compromise and scramble the text around within the Constitution. The only impact this would result in, would be further compromising and changing of other issues within the document in which our liberties and rights are explained in. 
      As our nation continues to expand in population, new generations of Americans will discover new issues within the Constitution. Americans must come to realize that compromises and changes within the text of our Constitution will just continue to devalue its original meaning. If we, as Americans let ourselves destroy the fundamental value of our political document, then the government will not have any trouble using our weaknesses to their advantage. Do we want to see more of our guaranteed rights and freedoms trampled upon by our government? This question must really be examined throughly by the eyes of all Americans. Issues such as gun control, abortion, unreasonable searches, and stipulations for serving office, should only be reviewed in comparison to the original interpretation of the Constitution. Americans with a bendable view on the Constitution are not wrong for questioning its interpretive text, but they are guilty for disrespecting our founding father’s beliefs and also for trying to dismantle the document in which lists the building blocks which have formed our nation into the one it is today.  







	Works Cited
Fritz, Jean. “ The Constitution of the United States”. Shh! We’re Writing the Constitution. 1st ed. Ed. Paperstar. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1998. 49-64
Lerner, Craig S. “The Reasonableness of Probable Cause.” Texas Law Review 81 (2003): 951-1030
Rife, Douglas M. “History Speaks..”. Bill of Rights. Carthage, IL: Teaching and Learning Company, 1997. 1-48