Research Paper Sample about British Constitution

Ever since the colonies broke free from the rule of Great Britain, our nation has been governed according to the principles stated in the Constitution. The Framers drafted the Constitution with principles aimed to protect the rights and liberties individual and to prevent tyranny rule from reoccurring. Efforts made to prevent tyranny included establishing separation of powers along with checks and balances between the three branches of government. While the Constitution is a document that has proved to stand the test of time with core principles that still hold true today, it is still a document that is centuries old. The framers drafted a constitution that fitted its time, but society has changed and there are a lot of things and situations that they couldn’t have predicted back then. Therefore, I believe that courts should practice the approach of construing the Constitution according to principles of the Living Constitution to make the Constitution work for our society today.

A document drafted centuries ago will always outdated even though the core values of it remain true. The only way that we can still utilize said document is only if we put our own modern spin on it to make it work for our society today. This approach can be clearly explained by the dissent of Justice Brandeis in Supreme Court case of Olmstead v. United States where the court had to rule on whether wiretapping a telephone conversation constituted a violation of one’s fourth amendment right. When the Constitution was written this situation would not have been considered because wiretapping telephone conversations was something that did not exist at that time. However, a private telephone conversation is supposed to be between the two parties at each end and is not meant to be heard by another party. In this case, the court had to understand that the fourth amendment was meant to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Although it was not a physical search of the plaintiff, it is hard to say whether searches will even be physical in the future as technology has changed the way we do things so then the court must take that into account to make the Constitution work for today’s society. Although the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of United States in Olmstead v United States stating that the fourth amendment only pertained to physical searches, this decision was later overturned in the Supreme Court case of Katz v. United States where the court decided that “The fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” meaning that the physical intrusion into an individual’s space is not a required fact. Both the dissent of Justice Brandeis and the decision in Katz v. United States stayed true to the purpose of the fourth amendment while taking into consideration all the technological advancements that exists in our society today changes the way we do things and offer other methods in which the government can violate your rights without any physical interaction.

Furthermore, there are even times when certain values that most people in the society hold change. A prime example of this is the Supreme Court cases of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the court concluded that racial segregation laws did not violate the 14 amendment’s Equal Protection clause that forbids the states from denying “to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” if the facilities provided for Blacks were equal in quality as the facilities for Whites. This decision was made at a time where the separation between races was not uncommon and many did not see a wrong in separating them, therefore, this case established a precedent and doctrine known as “separate but equal”. However, this decision would not prove to be one to stand the test of time as the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) would reverse the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) stating that the separation of races in school was a violation of the 14 amendment’s equal protection clause. An originalist interpretation of this case would have stuck to the precedent as the Constitution does not explicitly include a ban on school segregation, but the Warren Court had decided to interpret the Constitution more loosely and focused more on “public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.” Along with the damage that segregation can cause to young black children, the Civil Rights movement has brought a new perspective to society which condemned what they would consider to be normal. The need for the Supreme Court to be able reverse decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is crucial as it allows for precedents that are truly wrong to no longer be of relevance to the courts in future cases.

There are understandable concerns about the Judicial branch overstepping its boundaries and taking on certain duties that should belong to other branches which can upset the checks and balances between the three branches of government. The ability of the courts to strike down laws made by the legislative takes away from the power of the legislative, however, the ability for Courts to judge on the Constitutionality laws and actions is crucial as it is an extra filter to catch any mistakes. In addition, the Courts does not necessarily abuse that ability and rule many things unconstitutional. The courts are also very selective in the cases that they do ultimately rule certain laws or actions unconstitutional; the courts do practice judicial restraint and only do so when there is a mistake that cannot be easily ignored.  

The ability for the courts to practice the approach of construing the Constitution according to principles of the Living Constitution to make the Constitution work for our society today allows the Constitution to continue to be relevant and true for the future too. Justice Marshall had also stressed the importance of the a flexible Constitution in order for it to continue to be of relevance or else it will just be “splendid bauble”, a piece of document that we can admire for laying down the foundations of our government but will ultimately be of no use when applied to our society today.