The Effects of Constitutional Interpretation on Federal and State Power, and Why It's Relevant

Two political posts in a row??? I must be losing my mind; if so, I'm clearly not alone. Unless you've been living under a rock, politics have been in an especially inflammatory place, beginning primarily upon the leaked Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v. Wade. DISCLAIMER: I have no interest in discussing or debating the various aspects of Roe v. Wade or abortion as a whole. I do not, in fact, have a particular penchant for ticking people off and getting yelled at by anyone on any side of the political spectrum; the only aspect of this particular case that I find especially interesting is its effects on how we perceive the Constitution moving forward.

The importance of Roe v. Wade, outside of its obvious implications on abortion, lies in how it channels federal power. In its simplest form, Roe took the power to limit or allow abortion away from the states and placed it into the hands of the federal government; more specifically, it essentially made abortion a constitutional right, out of reach of either state or federal governments. Debates on the validity of such a decision all hinged on a loose or strict interpretation of the Constitution, with loose interpreters finding certain aspects of the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, and assigning this right to abortion, and strict interpreters arguing that nothing specifically discusses abortion in the Constitution, so it cannot be a constitutional right.

I wanted to focus in on this strict/loose interpretation idea because I find it interesting that the same debate has been raging since the beginning of the country. Just like I mentioned in the last article (go read it if you haven't!), debates about the interpretation of the Constitution can be traced back, most notably, to Jefferson, Hamilton, and the National Bank. Jefferson's opposition to the National Bank hinged upon his strict interpretation of the Constitution, which never mentioned a national bank of any kind; Hamilton didn't think of the Constitution in this way, claiming that the national bank was necessary to the health of the US, and thus followed the necessary and proper clause. This debate sparked up throughout the history of the United States, with both sides switching up to serve their interests, which is a phenomenon familiar to us today. Controversies ranging from abortion to free speech feature members of both sides of the aisle taking either a broad or strict interpretation, depending on which perspective suited their interests most beneficially.

The problem, of course, was that this debate was never truly resolved. The Supreme Court uses the Constitution to make decisions, of course, but they, too, vary in their interpretation; the initial Roe v. Wade case suggested a broad interpretation, while its alleged forthcoming overturning indicates a strict interpretation. If the Supreme Court can't decide, who are we to know for sure which was intended by the founding fathers? The important part, of course, is that we follow the aspects of the Constitution that are explicitly stated, specifically the 10th Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Key words: to the states. The scariest aspect of this entire ordeal, in my opinion, is the precedent that it sets for future decisions.

Let's talk about the leaker. No one knows who it was, but their motive is a clear 50-50: either a liberal looking to drum up public outcry to encourage SCOTUS to change their mind, or a conservative aiming to cement the Court's opinion before it is released. Both motives are pathetic, and both supremely undermine the integrity of the judicial system, but both unfortunately like achieved their goal of raising absolute hell amongst the American public. This concerns me because no one cares about the leaker and his/her impact on future court decisions. The integrity of the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the most unshakably honorable institution in the United States Government, has taken a massive blow, and any future decisions will be seen through the lens of potentially having been influenced by fear of public opinion. This, in turn, undermines the integrity of the Constitution; after all, if it's not in the Constitution, it's the states job. The idea that future decisions may give unwarranted power to the federal government is disappointing to say the least because it would no longer be a question of broad or strict interpretation; it would be a clearly outlined guideline in the governing document of our country that is entirely ignored.

This, more than anything, sits especially poorly with me. To ignore one of the most important founding principles of the United States in the name of some perverted form of "true justice" would be to tear down everything that the word justice stands for.

So, in conclusion, the takeaway from this entire mess should be an increased emphasis and focus on following the founding aspects of the Constitution, while leaving everything else to be debated separately. The future success of the judicial system hinges upon this return to integrity.

If you read this far, thank you! I've enjoyed getting to empty my thoughts onto this site over the past few years, especially as of late, and any feedback is always appreciated. Feel free to reach out with any questions, comments, or suggestions to my instagram, @e_huffman11, or my email, catchershort11@gmail.com. If you're a high schooler, good luck on AP exams! Don't stress out too much over them; you've probably got enough going on without them.

Thanks again.

Emory