Con Law Disillusionment

My Constitutional Law class did a mock impeachment trial this week. One of my classmates served as the “president,” who sent an invading force of 20,000 soldiers to counter a communist threat in Central America – without a declaration of war from Congress. Another classmate was the “Chief Justice,” who moderated the trial and took the vote at the end. A few people served as special prosecutors and special counsel to the president. The rest of us were senators; we questioned the president and debated whether to throw him out of office. It was heated and feisty and we ended up with just enough votes to fire the president and replace him with the VP.

Yes, I was one who voted the president out of office. I based my decision on his flagrant abuse of power and the other cavalier and unsavory actions he took as described in the fact pattern. For example, he secretly asked the Chief Justice to help him avoid the impeachment trial. (I had D&C 121:39 running through my mind.)

During another Con Law class, we had a guest speaker (a professor from California) who addressed whether politics does or should affect the Supreme Court. He and my professor informally debated their ideas and addressed questions from the class.

I came away from both events with my blood pumping and my hands shaking – apparently I’m somewhat passionate and defensive about my understanding of the Constitution.

I’ve heard from several people (outside the Con Law department) that Constitutional Law is all made up. And I agree with them to a point. It’s as if whoever tells the best story wins, or whoever has politics on their side wins, because the Supreme Court will interpret the case using whatever test or ideas give them the result they want. It’s a little disillusioning.

No, I’m not disparaging the Constitution itself. I know it was inspired. But the modern interpretation of it is often tenuous, forced, or even twisted.

Perhaps that is an overly cynical view, merely the result of mortal beings not living up to my ideals. I do think the Justices are generally trying to do what’s right and stick to the Constitution as written. But I also feel they too easily go beyond the plain language of the document, even to the point where an average person wouldn’t understand or expect the outcome. The most frustrating aspect of law is any appearance of disingenuousness, favoritism, or absurd technicality.

So here’s my little soap box interpretation of Con Law: There are enumerated powers in the Constitution and there is a necessary and proper clause. The laws the government makes, enforces, and interprets should fit within both descriptions. There are conceivably laws that would be within the enumerated powers, but not necessary and proper. And there are laws that are necessary and proper, but outside the scope of the federal government’s enumerated powers. I feel the Venn diagram of those categories is much clearer than the actions of the government imply.

I also think, however, that my interpretation is the harder road. It leaves the pressure for solving problems (beyond a very basic safety net) in the hands of the people. More free and less bureaucratic, but far more risky to individuals, groups, and society.

Okay, I’m back off my soap box. A more pleasant turn of events is that the prevalence of blossoming trees has vastly expanded. The white flowers are a nice addition to the landscape. (Sorry, no pictures.)