The Constitutional Compass

In the arena of Constitutional interpretation there are two camps. First, there are originalists or strict constructionists, who posit that a clear reading of the Constitution demands a close following and application of the Founders' original intent for present day legislation. Then there are loose constructionists or living constitutionalists believe that the document ought to adapt with the times and that originalism risks an anachronism that overlooks America's historical problems and the necessity for the Constitution to evolve with each era. For example, the Reconstruction Amendments following the Civil War seemingly expanded federal powers as controls were seen as necessary to thwart the upheaval of the rebellious Southern states. In essence, greater nationalism suppressed states' rights in order to guarantee civil rights across the national spectrum. 

So which is the correct form of interpretation? On one hand, we might still have slavery, a suppressed female voice, and even sub-par safety standards if the federal government did not exert itself above states. So, a living constitutionalism makes sense from a civics and ethics stance. On the other hand, without consulting original intent, we've lost many checks and balances that came with a dual-federalism (national and state counterbalance and cooperation). The most prevalent evidence of this loss is the quasi or modified monarchical system that places the presidency and the executive branch in a more domineering role than the Article Two clause of the Constitution intimates. 

To this latter point, it's quite understandable that some life or evolutionary mechanisms do exist in the vague parts of the Constitution, as not everything necessary for government have been explicit. Yet, this ought not be seen as complete license to bastardize the document for each generational whim. Therefore, I support what Jeffrey Rosen -- the Director of the National Constitution Center -- calls a living-originalism. When warranted for the sake of faithfulness to the broader Constitution, the Constitution needs applicable flexibility to deal with vague or unclear obstacles. Yet, original intent cannot be ignored or else we lose coherence and objectivity. 

It's much like a compass that points true north. True north is at the point of the arrow and encompasses the intent of the Founders. Yet, as one follows a path toward true north, there may be obstacles like boulders and rivers that cut-off the road and so a need to navigate around these blockades becomes necessary, so we veer slightly. The compass may still read north, but may be off a degree, or may be as far as northwest or northeast, yet the course toward north remains. This is what happened with Reconstruction. While its veering  increased the federal reigns, it did so to ensure the equality of marginalized citizens, which is consistent with our constitutional rights and opening of our Declaration of Independence.  Flexibility corrected shortcomings between our practice and our stated political ideology.

What we need to avoid is the complete rejection of north for the sake of expediency and contemporary fads or philosophies. We cannot call east, west, or south north and expect to remain constitutional. Yet, we cannot stop at obstacles on the path that lead to inefficiencies, apathy, and the status quo. We need to find re-routing to true north through flexibility from time to time.