om French Philosophy (Jaffa 38). This quote serves the purpose to show that there are no limits to how extreme interpretation can get; you just need a person who has an extreme imagination. In a speech at Washington University, Justice Scalia was quoted saying: You want a right to abortion? Its in there! You want a right to die? Its in there! The only criterion, apparently, is what do we care passionately about(Singer A5). If judges are given the right to interpret the Constitution as they please, this is insinuating that their opinion on what the Constitution is saying is better than the original framers; that in some way we are more enlightened in this day in age than they were over 200 years ago. In some ways this statement is very true. For example, we are more technologically advanced, much more politically correct, and we have had those 200 some years to look back on and see what mistakes were made. The only problem with all of this is that one would be assuming that things have gotten better since then, which is not necessarily a true statement. [The idea that societies get better] is not the attitude of people who thought that we needed a Constitution in general and a Bill of Rights in particular. They understood that societies do not always get better and better. They can also rot (Singer, A5). On the same note, who is to say that the morality of society has grown better? Tests of morality, such as abortion for example, would probably not have been within the moral compass of those who wrote the Constitution. Just because it is morally in lines with a few judges today who can make it legal, does that mean it is all right? This is a tough question to answer because if a judge is given the right to interpret the Constitution, he or she will eventually be forced to make a major moral decision. Although nonoriginalist theories posit that the Constitution must evolve to reflect the changes in societys fundamental values, th...
