Constitution Day discussion sparks Supreme Court debate
Meg Brown , Staff Writer

SSU faculty, students and community members met Sept. 19 in an open discussion to mark the day in 1787 when our forefathers finished and signed the United States Constitution.  If you’re up on your history you know this historic event actually took place on Sept. 17, but since this date fell on a Saturday, the Constituion Day discussion took place in the beginning of the week.

Tuesday’s open panel was led by Perry Marker of the Education Department, who summed up the potentially confusing nature of our democracy‘s roots by asking, “What is the nature of this beast we call the Constitution?” 

Mike Kiraly of the University Library, Michelle Jolly of the Dept. of History and Barry Preisler of the Political Science Dept. joined him in the discussion.  Each supplied a brief but thoughtful rundown on different aspects of the Constitution, addressing issues like ‘advice and consent,’ implied rights and why we should care about who is nominated to the Supreme Court.

A common theme in Marker’s open address was thinking critically as citizens to continually work to better our society, and to make our democracy work for us.

“I really think Thomas Jefferson had it right in terms of what our responsibilities are as citizens, and more specifically to learn how to judge for themselves what will secure or endanger our peers,” said Marker.  That’s a broad important mandate, one that all of us in a democratic society needs to think about.”

Jefferson was just one of the historic figures quoted at the discussion; he was joined by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

Kiraly continued by discussing the bumpy road the Constitution took to the ratification process and elaborating on how complex the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice can be.

“Its not just the qualifications of the nominee at hand, but also public opinion and Senate pressure revolving around that nominee,” said Kiraly.

Jolly continued with this train of thought by showing how extensively Supreme Court decisions have affected the course of our country and continue to do so today.  Rulings in cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Supreme Court of 1896 allowed a law segregating Louisiana railroad cars to stand, demonstrate how the nine justices can affect everyone in our society.

That same power is still held by the Court today, although justices now tackle controversial decisions involving homosexuality, gender rights and abortion.  Some rights are stated more clearly in the Constitution, while others are more ambiguous.  Jolly pointed out a more amusing Constitutional liberty - that freedom of speech and freedom of press imply a freedom to read.

Other constitutional rights, such as privacy, have been addressed in cases like Roe v. Wade of 1973, in which the Supreme Court ruled it was a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.  This topic remains complex and the case was even re-opened in 1992.  The end result remained the same, although three justices argued that a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy is not a constitutionally protected right because it is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Abortion is just one of many controversial issues the Supreme Court faces each year.  Even though about 1,000 cases are sent to the court each year, only about 100 of those are heard, and the nine justices must do the best they can to be fair and thorough when hearing each matter.

“For all that we’ve talked about objectivity and about impartiality which we want the justices to bring to this, nevertheless justices bring their own understanding of the institutions, of the law, of the Constitution, of the power of the state,” said Jolly. “And if the question we’re looking at today is why does it matter to us who is nominated to the court, I think that is the answer.”

Preisler finished the lecture by delving into the system of checks and balances and the question of partisanship; what happens if the same political party controls all three branches of government?  He said that separating the powers of nomination and veto between the branches helps limit this possibility, but not if both the Executive branch and Congress are controlled by the same political party.

According to Preisler, 85 - 95% of presidential nominees to the Supreme Court are members of the President’s political party.  He also noted that it is not common for Congress to reject a presidential nominee.  It would be more likely for a nominee to foresee rejection and withdraw their nomination.

Preisler continued by mentioning some background of Constitution Day and the man responsible for the new holiday, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.  Byrd has been a member of the Senate for 46 years and is more recently the author of “Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency.”

“[Constitution Day] is probably much more the case ‘Losing Our Constitution’ or seeing our Constitution being destroyed,” said Preisler.  He compares Byrd to James Madison, noting that checks and balances still remain a concern in the modern day, particularly where the powers of government lie.

The Constitutional interpretation brought attention to modern concerns for society.  As Marker said: “It’s our responsibility to play with our democratic ideal and make it work for us as citizens.  I think we need to transform and reconstruct our democracy in order to make a better place for all.  We’ve got a long way to go in terms of our democracy being a democracy that’s rooted in equality and justice for all.”