Wednesday, October 18, 2000

By AMY RILEY
One Citizen's Perspective

As the presidential election squeezes down to the wire, for many voters the decision comes down to one of which candidate will best represent the people of the United States on Supreme Court appointments.

This next presidential term is seen by many as pivotal on key issues such as abortion, public prayer, and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms," because it is expected that as many as three, possibly four, Supreme Court appointments will be made by either George Bush or Al Gore. With many of our most recent high profile court decisions, the margin of ruling has been five to four. Even one judicial appointment could literally tilt the axis on key issues in this country. In my mind, this is probably the single greatest issue facing the voters now.

Al Gore has said that he "would look for justices for the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document that was intended ... to be interpreted in light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."

What is critical here is to know what Al Gore means by "interpret." Does he mean that to interpret is to define, or does he mean that to interpret it to shape? Based on all of the other Algoreisms witnessed in this race, and based on his radical views in his book, "Earth In The Balance," I would have to assume that he means "to shape."

This is a classic example of relativism, or "situational ethics," which has been the hallmark of the post '60s and '70s era "me generation." It's the mindset that gave us the mistaken notion that right or wrong no longer matter. Situational ethics looks instead at whether it "feels" right or wrong for the individual.

The founding fathers, in writing the Constitutional blue print for our system of government, envisioned that their 1700s era perspective may not ring a persistent familiar note with the evolving peoples of America, which is why they wrote in a provision for amendment to the document. That process has been used quite profoundly and aptly numerous times over the course of the past two centuries.

Had the visionaries for this great republic envisioned the extremes to which our modern judiciary would "interpret" the Constitution, and effectively "legislate from the bench," I would imagine they would have included a more specific check on that particularly destructive practice. Perhaps "we, the people," should see to that amendment.

Al Gore promises to use a "litmus test" for any justice that he might appoint if elected. That test will be whether or not that individual will uphold a woman's right to have an abortion.

I suspect that if a potential appointee passes by that issue with Al Gore, there may be a few other litmus test questions waiting in the wings, such as "does the 2nd Amendment specifically mean that the people have the right to bear arms or does that right only apply to a "well regulated militia?"

Another might be does the Constitution, in preventing the "establishment" of religion, allow the government to wipe away all vestiges of public expression of religion? Many have argued, accurately in my opinion, that the prohibitions on all public expression of religion in effect does constitute the establishment of a religion atheism.

George Bush has said that he would name justices to the Supreme Court who would "uphold the Constitution" as written. He says there will be no litmus test hurdles in his appointment process. Bush takes a moderate conservative approach to the abortion issue, believing that it is not a protected right except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. George Bush seems to reflect the view of millions of Americans that modern government, big government, has far exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction. That he would view the Constitution as a sacred document is refreshing to me.

For those undecided voters out there, ask yourself this question:

In whose hands do you trust the Constitution of the United States?

[Your comments are welcome at: ARileyFreePress@aol.com.]

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page