I disagree with the statement “Popular sentiment or the ‘times’ should never be taken into consideration when the Supreme Court decides a constitutional question.” Our Founding Fathers structured the Constitution in 1787, leaving behind the flexibility to interpret their language and apply it to contemporary times. The Constitution is a time-tested source of foundational concepts for which regulate our society. The interpretation of the Constitution must include contemporary sentiments to facilitate the progression of the country in which it governs.
Since the establishment of the United States Constitution in 1787, much debate has risen in our Supreme Courts over how to interpret the language of the Constitution. Moreover, how is this interpretation of the language in the Constitution supposed to be justly applied in contemporary times? After review of certain Supreme Court cases it is clear that the interpretation of the Constitution evolves as social progression and popular sentiments change over time.
Taking a look back at when institutionalized segregation became legitimized, we review the 1896 Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided by a vote of 7 to1 that racial segregation was constitutional in public accommodations. The pretence of this judicial decision by the Supreme Court was based on the doctrine of “separate but equal”. At the time, segregation based on racial classification was viewed as legal as long as facilities were of equal quality. In order to decipher this historical interpretation that would later set the precedence of “equal protection” it is important to view this interpretation in a chronological context. During this time “equal protection” was interpreted in the shadow of an already segregated, post-slavery society in which the white mainstream culture dominated the upper echelon of society. The Plessy v. Ferguson case came to the Supreme Court as a result of a railroad dispute filed by Homer Plessy. Plessy boarded a designated white only car on the East Louisiana Railroad in June of 1892, he was one-eighth black and seven-eights white. Under Louisiana state law, Plessy was legally classified as black and as a result was forced to sit in the designated “colored car”. White sentiments during 1880’s and 1890’s legitimized racial segregation and adopted it as a social normality. In those times racial segregation was constitutional and much apart of white culture. However as time went on the populace of the U.S. began to move toward into a non-discriminatory sentiment.
Fifty eight years after the Plessy vs. Ferguson trial, a time when popular sentiments had grown distinctly different than that of 1896, the famous Brown v. Board of Education suit was brought to the Supreme Court. In 1954, the United States Supreme Court reversed its former rulings in Plessy vs. Ferguson, disbanding the former state laws that instituted separate public schools for black and white students. The court found racial segregation to be a breach of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This redefining of “equal protection” is believed to be a catalyst in sparking the subsequent civil rights movement of 1955. During the years following the trial, fierce new sentiments fueled the fight against racial inequality. This change away from institutionalized segregation to institutionalized equality came as a result of changing popular sentiments overtime.
The previously instituted “separate but equal” doctrine became reinterpreted as “equal opportunity”. In fifty eight years, the interpretation of “equal protection” moves from exclusion-based separation to inclusion-based integration. As time changes the ways in which we personally define and interpret certain language changes as well. If judicial officials are deprived the opportunity to take modern sentiments into consideration when determining the intended scope of Constitutional rights, the Constriction might possibility demand a constant amendment process in order to serve our evolving society.
Albert Einstein once said “If we always do what we've always done, we'll always be what we've always been”. Although Albert Einstein never served on the United States Supreme Court, I feel that his words support my thesis. Opinions toward social issues such as race relations, homosexual marriage, and abortion change overtime and greatly influence the evolution of modern society. These changing sentiments should be incorporated in the interpretation of constitutional rights in order to help facilitate and more toward a more perfect union. If contemporary sentiments are excluded from interpretations of the Constitution, especially in cases involving social matters, intrinsically the Constitution would likely stifle upward mobility and social evolution within our society.
