Morality has to play a role when making legal rulings. If it didn't, then we really would have no need for human judges. We would just use computers that would determine whether an act was in violation of the words in the Constitution. But since we are human and therefore moral, passionate creatures, we have to consider feelings and consequences. We have to have morality.
It seems that some judges, however, try to be like machines. They aim to follow the letter of the law instead of just the spirit of the law. For example, it seems to me that Supreme Court Justice Scalia rules how he thinks the framers of the Constitution intended for him to rule. While this is a good idea in several respects (it emphasizes the importance of precedent, limits the need for many new laws, and prevents ambiguity), it is also detrimental.
I think that the Constitution should be a sort of "living" document. The framers made the elastic clause for a reason, right? Clearly our world is not the same as it was during Constitution-writing time. There wasn't even internet then! It would be impossible for the framers of the Constitution to make laws that govern people who don't live at ALL like the framers did. We have to govern how we're living now, NOW.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see where you are coming from and I understand why people think that way, I just disagree with that point of view. I do not see the Constitution as a living document. Judges are in place to follow the law and the Supreme Court Justices are there to make sure that the lower court rulings are following the Constitution, not to legislate from the bench. We have a branch of the government that was made for the reason, which is the way the founders set up our government.
ReplyDeleteI agree that morality is especially important when it comes to juries, because being human; their morals certainly influence their verdicts. When it comes to the Constitution, it needs to be an ever evolving document, that is the reason we have Amendments, because society is always changing and laws need to be up to date with the times.
ReplyDeleteI agree that laws need to be up to date with the times. However, morality is not behind every single judgment that is made nor ever single law that is passed.
ReplyDeleteThe constitution has to be followed by the judges. When too many feelings get involved then it can be a mess. Black letter law needs to be followed regardless of feelings.
Morality needs to be both a considered factor into how the law is carried out, but also needs to be cautioned against. Laws are black and white; they are lines which have been drawn that should be (for the most part) crossed under certain situational factors. Judges have been given the power to make judgment but need to do so under the Constitutional limitations. When you begin to allow too much discretion to be placed in judge’s hands and taken from the law, the lines can become muddled and a trend of altering the law can start without a definite end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that we cannot have our judges acting like machines. Our world has changed the way we live with technology and it is hard to put some of these morals we have to use today. I think they are good starting point but we have to be flexible in looking at them.
ReplyDeleteI think the Ten Commandments were a great starting point for written law. They were basic guidelines for what people should and should not do. The Constitution was clearly a more refined written law and unlike the Ten Commandments, it allowed room for adaptation and makes the Constitution applicable to any time and situation.
ReplyDeleteAgree with many of the above posts: The Constitution, as a document to promulgate the law, was created with malleability, that is, individuals are able to adjust it accordingly (e.g. the 27 amendments). That is the beauty of the constitution and America, namely, we have the opportunity to adapt and change our government in ways that best suit the individuals of this country.
ReplyDelete