Since the framers started drafting the Constitution, there has been controversy over meaning and intent. It has inspired debate for more than two centuries. The importance of the Constitution as a source of authority is often a pawn in political debate and partisan views. Politicians, judges, historians and the public at large have debated what the framers intended, and what influenced their wording. Was it economic, social or rights factors that influenced them? Were they visionaries or rich men protecting their own interests? Many have studied this topic and have arrived at a vast number of opinions on the matter. Whatever the intent, there are always those who disagree with either side based on their present need or issue at hand. During good times, the Constitutions interference is unwelcomed, but when in times of need or distress, the Constitution is relied on heavily for support and absolute authority. Who exactly makes the determination at each turn as our nation goes on growing, changing and becoming more opinionated and/or divisive? …show more content…
Chief Justice John Marshall observed many years ago, “we must never forget it is a Constitution we are expounding…intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” It was his opinion that we would have to apply our judgment, experience and education to the frame of the Constitution to be able to find it’s applicability in an ever changing world. There are many things not explicitly addressed in the Constitution that have to rely on interpretation of the principles of its clauses to apply meaning. However, sometimes the courts have made egregious errors by making policy choices rather than using the principles in the Constitution to make rulings that have been challenged. These types of decisions stem from a practice of judicial activism as opposed to one of judicial