POS 2041 Writing Assignment- Understanding the Constitution

9/30/10

These two cases tell us that the constitution is something that isn’t always

completely clear on very specific subjects. It leaves the door open for interpretation when

it comes to more controversial issues. It allows for the government (the judicial branch)

to decide on what exactly should be done according to what they (the supreme court

justices) believe to have deciphered from the constitution’s text.

For example, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall

decided that the federal government did indeed have the power to charter a national bank

based on the premise that the wording in the “necessary and proper clause” allowed for it.

The Justice had to make an important decision based on ideas of a single clause, less than

40 words long. He had to decide on what he thought would be the meaning of the clause

when applied to this issue of federal banking and federal control of money. Was it

implied that the federal government had the right to have a national bank? Was it also

implied that the government could create and control currency? Not exactly, but that is

how the justice viewed it. Ultimately, the decisions in this case would greatly expand the

control and responsibilities the federal government had over the states. It would open up

the gate for other government services to be enacted. It showcased the power of the

Judicial Branch and Supreme Court of our government. The Ability for the national

government to charter their own banks, and more importantly to control the system of

currency was one of the first major actions in expanding the power of federalism. And

although it was a great power to control the currency, it was also something that was

really needed for interstate commerce. All of the states in the union at that time had

money that was unique to their state. A regulation of currency made it much easier for
businesses, states, and the national government to handle their finances.

With the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court had to further evaluate the

meaning of the Commerce Clause. Since the clause itself is just one sentence in Article I

Section VIII, Justice Marshall had to specifically decide if the clause meant only the

commerce regulation of products (as argued by the states) or also the regulation of

commercial activity. In this case, the operation of steamboats on the Hudson River, and

whether or not these states had the right to control their own shipping regulations.

Now, to me, it seems obvious that there is no way that the justice deciding in this

case can get an answer to this commerce question from the little information given in the

Constitution. It seems that he really had to find what was logical and practical on his

own. The monopoly created by the steamboat service of New York must have been the

main factor in choosing the outcome. It was evident that something must be done if order

for the interstate commerce of this state, and all the states, to work in a more practical

fashion. The conclusion of the case was that Aaron Ogden’s exclusive control over the

waters of the Hudson River was unconstitutional. It was a decision that influenced future

interstate regulation issues such as labor and wage regulations (United States v. Darby

Lumber Co.).

To me, it seems evident that there is no actual “plain meaning” to the constitution.

In these two court cases, the justice had to decide the case on ideas of what he viewed

what was being said in a few certain clauses. Clauses that are less then a paragraph each!

The Constitution is believed to be vague on purpose. When the framers of the

constitution were in the process of creating it, they knew they couldn’t agree on

everything so they knew it would be better to leave it open for future generations to
interpret and further detail the meanings.

Supreme Court Justices have power like no other members of the US government.

They have the power to decide on cases and issues that become the laws of the entire

country. They have the power to overturn laws that also affect the entire country. The

decisions these few people make are enormous, and have sweeping affects on the United

States, decisions that can and will stay into effect for many, many, years to come.

These gigantic responsibilities make it important to have a process that appoints

Justice’s that are fully committed to translating the Constitutions meaning, and not

translating the Constitution in a way that prefers their personal ideas or personal

preferences. A Supreme Court judge has to continuously weigh the issues of their court

cases. They have to decide on these issues according to facts, laws, logic and the vague

text of the constitution. This makes it extremely important for the appointed justice to

have an extensive knowledge of the constitution. They need to be able to be trusted with

translating the so-called “plain meaning” of the Constitution.

Many measures are made to make sure that a nominee to the Supreme Court is a

fairly balanced candidate. Even though the president chooses the nominee, the senate has

to consent to the nomination by coming to a simple majority vote. It rarely happens, but

in some cases, the member of the senate will not find a Justice Nominee to be a right fit

for the job. In my opinion, that is where the “plain meaning” part comes in. The members

of the senate have a vetting process to find out if this person will judge in the courts in a

way that will follow the constitution, and follow logic. An effort is made to make sure

that nominees with extreme politically preferences are weeded out. They realize that if an

ultra conservative, or an extremely liberal leaning nominee, made their way into the
Supreme Court (a position with no terms) it could have severe effects to issues such as

civil liberties. A similar case was found with Supreme Court Justice Nominee Abe

Fortas, a relationship that is considered too close to the President, and again, too much of

a “left leaning” personality.