Interpreting The Constitution

The most used defense in United States history has always been the Constitution. People have justified many deeds and/or criminal actions with this document. Written a little over two hundred years ago, it’s no surprise that the Constitution is highly debated. In fact, the United States has an entire branch of government specifically for interpreting the Constitution: the judicial branch. However, even the judicial branch’s interpretation is debated; the Supreme Court is constantly judged for its decisions. People wonder just what role the Supreme Court must have in interpreting the Constitution; many varying ideas have surfaced about this. Some take on a more literal interpretation of the Constitution when judging the level of constitutionality
In Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, the accused violation being addressed was a breach of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, specifically the section that states “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.” The issue at hand dealt with the intact D and E procedure used in abortions and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibited said procedure. In a 5 to 4 decision, Justice Kennedy ruled in favor of Gonzales, saying that it still upholds the 14th Amendment. This decision, according to Brennan’s interpretation of the Constitution, was incorrect. This is further seen in Justice Ginsburg’s Dissenting Opinion. She starts her argument with ”Today’s decision is alarming,” clearly showing her distaste for the proceedings and leading into the reasoning behind her opinion. Ginsburg mentioned, several times, that the decision of the Supreme Court in this case undermined a woman’s right to choose. This argument can be connected to Justice Brennan’s thoughts concerning human dignity being protected in the Constitution. To undermine a woman’s right is to take away some of her worth, leaving a serious dent in her dignity. The Supreme Court’s decision is wrong because it not only takes that sense of worth away
Given how long ago it was written and how vague the framers were, the Supreme Court has a difficult job. While interpretation of the Constitution is debated, Justice Brennan provided a very reasonable outlook on the task. He highlighted that aspirations of social justice, human dignity, and brotherhood seen within the document and stressed that the Constitution “on its face is, in large measure, a structuring text, a blueprint for government.” Brennan made it clear that the framers of the text were intentionally vague and truly desired all-encompassing equality. When interpreting the Constitution and making decisions concerning laws, it is very important to keep in mind that the Constitution should not be interpreted literally, but the ideas behind and between the lines of the text should be