Bull derrick, re: If people believe that the concept of separation of church and state should be enshrined in the constitution, there are legislative routes to put it there and that would be the correct mechanism rather than through the courts, IMHO.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The thing about constitutionally protected rights is that legislative enactments that infringe upon such rights are narrowly interpreted and must meet stringent tests or they will be struck down. It's not a matter of the majority deciding such issues through their elected representatives, it's that certain rights were considered so essential to individuals that they were elevated above the normal power of the majority to limit them.
Most of us agree on such issues as free speech. When it comes to the "establishment clause" there are some who believe we should relax the prohibitions. On the right to bear arms there are differences of opinions on both the scope and necessity for that right. And on the rights of the accused there are many in this country who would emasculate such protections. That doesn't mean we should mess with the language of the constitution or suddenly abandon the 200 years of our best jurists decisions interpreting those rights to protect the concepts, values and principles which underlie them.
The thing that most people fail to understand is that the process of judicial interpretation proceeds over year, decades and sometimes centuries with many starts and stops. During that process there are normally many, many decisions on each side of an issue and over time a great wisdom develops and the product of that wisdom is often reflected in the decisions of the highest courts which ultimately resolve the conflicts among lower courts. The pivotal cases that define certain "rights" as being within the protections of the constitution are usually built upon a long series of lower court and related decisions decided by our best judicial minds.
Sometimes there are unintended consequences that result from judicial decisions and often the earlier decisions are explained or overturned by the courts that wrote them. Sometimes they are overturned many years later and by new justices. Most, however, withstand the test of time because the slow and thoughtful process through which they are created is one that usually generates wisdom.
When the "mood" of the country suddenly changes and we become impatient for change, there is a danger that we move too quickly into dangerous territory and create or abandon rights that are the foundations of true freedom. It is always alluring to think that we are limiting the rights of those who don't deserve or have abused certain rights, but in limiting their rights we often create cracks in our own liberties that sometime, somewhere, will surface and bite us in the ass.
Remember that the greatest threat to our personal freedom is usually not some foreign enemy but rather the oppressive power of our own government. |
