Supreme Court Question in the Presidential Debate

I made it through the first question before I tuned on something else.

Question: Do you think the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution like the Founders intended or is it a living document left to be interpreted by the Supreme Court to reflect the day and age?

Clinton: Blah blah blah…The Supreme Court should represent the people.

This should disqualify her from being President because it shows she does not understand the separation of powers or why the Founders wanted to separate the powers.

If the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution for the day and age, that gives them the power to legislate, which is vested in the Legislative branch. And, since presidents appoint justices, guess who then gets the power to legislate? Yes, the President.

Trump: Blah blah blah…The Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution as the Founders intended because that’s very important.

At least he got something almost right.

I would have said, the Supreme Court’s job is to decide whether something agrees or disagrees with the Constitution. That’s one source of the rule of law that has helped this country thrive.

The Constitution IS a living document.

BUT, it doesn’t live through arbitrary views of the Supreme Court Justices, it lives through Article V: The Amendment Process. You should all read it, America, because we don’t seem to know about it.

If we want to change the Constitution to reflect the day and age, we can. In fact, it has been changed twenty-two times in the country’s history, with the latest change coming in 1951 to limit the number of terms a President can serve.

So, yes, the Supreme Court should do its job and interpret the Constitution as intended.

And, just one point of technicality. You asked if they should interpret as the Founders intended. That’s a loaded question, because the Founders did not write all of the Amendments, so they did not write the whole Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution as all of its writers intended.

If “we” don’t like something that’s in the Constitution, then “we” should use Article V to change it it, like our predecessors did twenty-two times before.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s