A man in the arena

The Left is planning a legal conference at Yale. The purpose of the gathering is to carve out a unified agenda on Constitutional law. They are attempting to challenge the conservative political philosophy of originialism.

The real issue in the Left-Right battle over the courts is an argument of Ends and Means. For example: the Left wants gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. The Left believes the constitution is a progressive document and should be interpreted to support gay marriage. There desire is to change the Ends of judicial reasoning.

The Right, under the philosophy of originalism, sees that the Constitution makes no mention of gay marriage. They want the Constitution to be read as it was written. This would not disbar gay marriage if a state legalized it (although it would nullify the Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 1990s.) But it would not allow a judge to re-interpret the Constitution to find a right that is not written in it. The main concern is of the Means of Constitutional law.

The example in the Boston Globe of a progressive agenda is:

The ''citizenship clauses'' of the 14th Amendment (which state that ''the privileges and immunities'' of citizens shall not be abridged), for example, could be invoked to support for ''stakeholder'' grants of $80,000 to every citizen at birth in order to guarantee economic opportunity.

Obviously the 14th Amendment makes no mention of a "stakeholder" that deserves money. And it was obviously not the intention of the lawmakers of the time to create financial grants to the citizens at the expense of other citizens. But the Left sees this as a worthy goal, so it must be implied in the Constitution. They go so far as to disavow the process written in the constitution to change the Constitution: amendments.

''We're not talking about amending the Constitution here,'' says ACS executive director Lisa Brown. Rather, the emphasis is on ''interpreting it in ways that we think are more in the spirit of the founding values'' - and then promoting that vision to the American people.

When you ignore the written word of the Constitution, and substitute it with the "spirit" of the " founding values" you will be left with the personal desires of the judges refashioned as Law. That may seem all well and good if you are in power. Blacks were segregated in the South based on Plessy vs. Ferguson. In that case the judges ignored the written words of the 14th Amendment and found their version of its "spirit."

So we should all beware of getting what we ask for from the judges, because the process is more important than the outcomes. Besides, there is a way to change our laws. It is called an election.