Most countries have many, many laws on the books nowadays that go far beyond the basic morality of the Ten Commandments. Many of these additional laws start first in a society where certain acts or behavior are seen as being in “poor taste,” or the now common phrase, “unethical.”

A country, such as the United States, is seen as one of the most sophisticated, highly evolved societies on the planet. We are fortunate to have had a group of “Founding Fathers,” such as the likes of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These men were cultured, very intelligent, pillars of their community, well educated, and had a good income. In my opinion, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are documents I respect, and would have expected nothing less from a group of such highly regarded men. The Framers-of-the-Constitution had the foresight to realize that man and society were on a never ending continuum of life. What was well known and common practice in 1780’s America, was more evolved 100 years previous in 1680; and 100 years into the future in 1880 would be even further evolved than the colonial era. This concept of societal evolution led the Framers to build some methods of change into the Constitution; or, as I like to call it, the “what if” factor. The Constitution is a living document.

An important event occurred before the Constitution was written. It demonstrated that even a group of distinguished men do not always get something right on the first try. I am speaking of the “Articles of Confederation,” the pre-cursor document to the U.S. Constitution. An old college history professor I had, called the Articles of Confederation the “have-your-cake-and-it-too” version of the Constitution. He was referring to the heavy emphasis on state’s rights and a weak central government. In other words, the states saw the fundamental benefits of “safety-in-numbers” by banding together. But, at the same time, they wanted the states free to do what their citizens wanted without the central government or other states crying “foul!” Within a few years the leaders of the various states could see the Articles of Confederation were doomed to failure. So, back to the table they all went and wrote the Constitution.

The constitutional authors created a document with rules that would remain in-place indefinitely, unless the citizenship saw a need for change. Congress was charged with the responsibility to manage the process of constitutional change; that is, an amendment. The authors also realized from the failed Articles of Confederation that you can get some of the people to agree all of the time; and you can get all of the people to agree some of the time…but, you won’t get everyone to agree all of the time. If a particular section of the Constitution really became a thorn in everyone’s side, then an amendment could be drawn up. The authors, however, did not want the amendment process to be a simple thing to do; otherwise, the thing would undergo constant revisions.

The Constitutional authors understood it would be the primary legal reference for all future Federal, State and Local laws. If any question arose about future laws & regulations at any level in terms of
Constitutionality, the matter could be brought to a State Supreme Court, or ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. If a case is sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justices could read the filed briefs by opposing counsel and determine the issue at hand does not pose a big enough issue for the citizenry and decline to take the case. This means that whatever legal issue is in question, and however it is currently being applied, stays as is. If anyone wants to pursue further action, the only choice is to have the cognizant legislative body write new or revised legislation to change the status quo.

If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear a case, they will ultimately render a decision for or against the petitioning party in terms of whether the issue at hand meets the test of Constitutionality, or not. Keep in mind that most Supreme Court decisions are rarely black n’ white with all nine Justices in agreement. The Supreme Court does not write laws; but, their decisions will either affirm the Constitutional legality of a law(s), or determine a legal issue is unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. From a lawyer’s standpoint, they are looking to the Supreme Court to make a decision that sets a precedence of legal interpretation. This is the essence of what is referred to as “case law.” Any law that is not very specific is subject to interpretation. If s/he wants a sitting judge to decide in her/his favor, then it’s important for the attorney to cite case law decided in other court rooms so the judge for the case-at-hand has something to refer to as a basis of the decision handed down.

At the end of the day, no matter what the Supreme Court decides in a case, if the citizenry does not like the decision, then the legislature-of-jurisdiction can write new laws that conform to the Supreme Court decision, revise laws to make them conform, or do nothing and allow the decision to be applied to any case coming through the court system. The Supreme Court is a kin to an umpire crew at a baseball game. The umpires did not write the league’s rules; but, their interpretation and decisions about the rules can and may determine which team wins the game.