All Men Created Equal: The U.S. Constitution explained
N. Peter Antone
By N. Peter Antone
Special to the Chaldean News
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the famous words “all men are created equal,” his original intent was likely to limit that category to only white men, not minorities or women. Yet, when we celebrate this phrase today and teach it to our kids in school, we do so under the assumption that it represents people of all races, colors, and genders. However, there has never been a constitutional amendment to revise the original intent. So where did this change in interpretation originate?
The above is an example of the difficulty in adhering rigidly to the original intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution. They lived in a world with different values than ours. Indeed, we should give them credit for the sacrifices they made in order to leave the world a better place than they found it. For example, at the time Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution, not all white men were equal under the law, and his declaration, in itself, was a huge advancement for society.
But, if we look beyond the original intent of the founders, how can we avoid an overreach? The answer is that the founders original intent was based on noble principles that have the potential to be expanded upon and re-interpreted with time which we can do while being also careful to remain within the confines of those principles. For example, Thomas Jefferson’s intent rested on a principle that is wider and more inclusive than his written word – the principle that regardless of when or where people are born, they should have equal rights and opportunities. At his time, the people whom society considered worthy of such treatment were limited to white men. Though his words reference only “men,” today we understand this to include all individuals, regardless of ethnicity or gender, due to the broadness of the underlying principle.
Originalists are often concerned that if the Constitution is interpreted as having an expansive meaning (referred to as a “living document,”) this would allow the federal judiciary to create policy and law when its role should be limited to the interpretation of law. So how can a balance be achieved? The answer is that the judiciary to whom we give such responsibility should be selected wisely and in a way that will generate the respect of the majority of the public. Members of the Supreme Court are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate for lifetime appointments. When at least 60 Senators had to approve of any nominee, one could be more assured that ultimate selections reflected mainstream opinions. Unfortunately, due to actions taken by Senate majority leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, only 50 Senators are now needed to approve the President’s choice. This allows for more divisive selections. Additional controversy has arisen due to the recent lack of consistency in nomination procedures. In one case, a judicial appointment to the Supreme Court was delayed because an election was six months away, while another was made just three weeks before an election after the passing of a Justice. And while one side is pleased that the current composition of the Court appears to be in their favor, things could easily change course if and when the other side finds an opportunity to game the system, as evidenced by calls to pack the Court (which involves increasing the number of sitting Justices). Thankfully, these calls have mostly been ignored.
I think that the Supreme Court should pursue its decisions with some humility and with consideration of where the American people stand. A careful and balanced pathway for future decisions is critical for our nation to maintain faith in the Supreme Court as an independent and equal third branch of government.