Here's a little extra...

I thought I would post this. I wrote this for my friend's husband who was attending DBU. It is one of the better things I feel I've written in a while. Enjoy.


Original Intent vs. Judicial Activism

How should the U.S. Supreme Court judges interpret the Constitution in terms of original intent and judicial activism when deciding on landmark cases such as abortion and gay marriages? Elaborate by explaining your position. (Have a complete understanding of the terms before you write the journal.)
When the U.S. Constitution was written over 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers did not struggle with issues such as gay marriage or abortion, they hardly troubled with giving women the right to vote. They did however give their political descendants the option of revising their document, to allow for any issue that may arise, such as the above-mentioned questions, I would venture that they never thought those two questions would arise. If we are looking at the original intent of the Constitution however, it was to preserve the rights and protect the citizens it governed while preserving the central union that we today call the United States.
One of the ways the Founding Fathers decided to protect their citizens was by setting up a cooperative government, where one branch is obligated to monitor the other. The bigger question is this: are the states passing laws that are discriminatory to their citizens? Some would argue homosexuality is a choice, and certainly those who are pro-life would say that abortion is also. I would argue that at least homosexuality is not a choice. Who chooses to be ostracized by friends, family and society? Don’t these citizens, who are sometimes without any other support group deserving of at least legal protection? And doesn’t a woman who is raped or chooses to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons have the right to do so? Are we going to start telling all of our citizens, regardless of sex or creed, what to do with their bodies? Are the judges being activists or are they merely doing their jobs by making sure the laws are interpreted to protect all citizens. That was the intent of the judiciary, to check the laws passed by a Congress that can be controlled by men who wish to make laws after their own hearts. We have seen in the past that the disenfranchisement of our citizens must, at some point, come to an end. It did with the slaves, and then women and then Jim Crow, so it follows that at some point anyone would be able to get married, since by not allowing gays to marry we are depriving them of a fundamental right accorded to other citizens based on what some would consider a belief. Whether or not being gay is a belief or choice, our law was originally intended to allow us to practice those freely as long as they didn’t harm others. However, by not allowing these fundamental rights, the judges would be strengthening the case for those who see no need for hate crime legislation, since they would be implicitly condoning hate for a group of people that those laws have been passed to protect. I see no harm in allowing a monogamous couple, no matter their orientation to declare that. Also if we according illegal aliens human rights, we must allow women to be able to do what they wish with their own bodies. It is simple. The original intent was to protect all citizens, through explicit laws and a balance of power. This is nothing more than the working of our democracy.