Modern conservatives are anti-federalists (unless, of course, the issue is what goes on in other peoples bedrooms). They're favorite 'founding father' is Patrick Henry, and they sort of ignore Jefferson as the black sheep of the founding family.
Since it's not politically correct to identify yourself as an anti-federalist (smacks of anti-patriotism to some), they instead wrap themselves in a 'strict' interpretation blanket. Then, they make the incredible leap that the founding fathers believed in a strict interpretation, so they're just following the will of Jefferson and Madison. Nothing could be further from the truth. The greatness of the Constitution, and the brilliance of these fathers, was in 'constructing' the Constitution to allow for broad interpretation. It is a framework, a 'meta code of laws' if you will, whose strength is in its blend of flexibility and rigidness.
Times have changed. Back when the Constitution was written, few considered blacks to be equal with whites. But, since the Constitution was written to allow for the broad change of society, it was adjusted to reflect these broad changes. As our definition of 'all men were created equal' broadens to include minorities, women, and, someday, homosexuals, the framework stands above.
To your specifics: that's where the judicial branch has its power. They take the Constitutional framework and our society's current grasp of morality and interpret. As our society becomes more civilized (yes, in fits, starts, and stumbles, but over time we move in the right direction), the courts make sure our laws keep pace. The Constitution is occasionally amended, but in my mind these amendments are usually unnecessary. They are about formalization and not fundamental change (except for bad amendments like Prohibition).
Our interpretation of equal access to education has changed. The South showed that segregation does not result in equal opportunity. If they had, then maybe the courts would not have stepped in. The courts bridge that gap between the broadness of the Constitution and the reality of its implementation.
The problem with 'strict constructionists'...I hate that term, let's call them what they are...narrow anti-federalists is that they believe they can legislate to get around the basic tenets of the Constitution, and take the power of interpretation from the courts. A constitutional amendment to limit the rights of gays is the silliest misinterpretation of the wishes of Jefferson that I've ever heard - almost as silly as their proposed 'riders' on laws that try to say this particular law isn't subject to judicial review. Those people just don't get it, and probably never will. |
