The other day Senator and GOP Presidential hopeful John McCain and his wife were guests on the day time woman talk show The View. During their interview period John McCain was describing how he would only elect judges to the Supreme Court that will adhere to a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. Comedian and Talk Show host Whoopee Goldberg stated well the Constitution had slavery, does that mean I would return to slavery. Of course Mr. McCain stated that it wouldn’t.

Both of these people are wrong however, not so much about the slavery issue, but about the interpretation of the US constitution. I am by no means a Constitutional lawyer; all I know is all of graduate history research and my pocket constitution guide.

Slavery was never in the US Constitution. It was the absence of any law stating for or against slavery that caused the confusion and made the addition of the 13th and 14th amendment. The US Constitution (minus the amendments) is just a document that states how the government is to be arranged and the requirements for each branch. It is the amendments attached to the Constitution that dictates federal law.

For instance in the issue of slavery the argument was that the slave owning states declared that human beings were PROPERTY. Therefore right to own prosperity is protected by the US Constitution. It took the 13th amendment added after the Civil War to establish owning another human being as illegal. Then the argument was when slave owners demanded reparations for property (slaves) that were confiscated by the US Government. This in turn took the 14th amendment.
The states then tried to stop blacks from voting, this is turn took the addition of the 15th amendment.

No one, the United States founding fathers included could have foreseen the interpretation of the US Constitution this way. Constitutional signers such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Even though Jefferson released his slaves after he died, the very fact that they were slave owners left the US Constitution up to interpretation and their ‘true intentions.’

This is the problem when people say they want strict constitutional lawyers or liberal court judges. None are right. Article III of the Constitution layouts the responsibility of the Supreme Court. A strict constitutional judge would pass most of the decisions to the US State courts for decisions since the Constitution defines the Supreme Courts Judges in interpreting the laws of the US, treaties made by the US. More they will the authority for all cases with Ambassadors and case between the states. This is one of the major fights in the Roe vs. Wade fight. Many people believe that the Supreme Court overstepped their authority since Abortion was not a law in the US so they had nothing to interpret; instead they made law without amending the US Constitution.

There are needs for strong federal law that is clear and should not be subject to interpretation, such as the slavery issue that went totally wrong when the state were allowed to interpret law. But there are also times when the Supreme Court has overstepped their bounds by creating law instead of interpreting law.