What the Constitution Means to Me

The United States Constitution is arguably the most significant document to be produced in American history—not to be confused with the Declaration of Independence, which was signed on July 4th, 1776, effectively founding the country as a separate entity from England during the Revolutionary War, although the creators of the two texts share an overlapping cast of characters. Congress’s first version of a constitution was the short-lived Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Ratified in 1789 by all 13 original colonies, the Articles protected the sovereignty of individual states to govern themselves independently while forming a Perpetual Union, which was a deliberately minimal central government in which the states were more like individual countries, but they were also part of the federation and not permitted to secede. After the Revolution, however, it was apparent that to survive as a united country, the United States needed a document that established a more powerful central government. Therefore, in the summer of 1787, a Constitutional Convention made up of 55 men gathered in the increasingly sweltering (now-called) Independence Hall with the intention of revising the Articles of Confederation. These delegates fought unrelentingly over issues that affected different states in different ways, such as slavery and proportionate representation in legislature. They wrote a new document that laid out the supreme law of the country, superseding and preempting any state laws that might be deemed unconstitutional. The system of government outlined in the Constitution is based on checks and balances built into the three branches: the judicial, executive, and legislative. The new Constitution was ratified in 1788, and soon after it took effect in 1789, Congress put forth the Bill of Rights, which would become the first 10 out of (so far) 27 amendments, the most recent passed in 1992.

Perhaps the reason that the Constitution has lasted so long is its oft-cited adaptability. The language is broad enough to be open to interpretation, even when dealing with issues regarding technical and social advances that the so-named Founding Fathers would not be familiar with. Therefore, the justices of the Supreme Court are tasked with determining the best way to apply and decipher the language of the Constitution concerning modern issues. When a case comes before them, such as the case of Jessica Lenahan presented in the play, their ruling not only determines the outcome of the case, but it also sets a precedent for future cases. The ruling that Lenahan was not entitled to protection from the police means that the police aren’t legally obligated to protect anyone, unless that ruling is one day overthrown and replaced with a new precedent. These justices are meant to be non-partisan and neutral, but it is a notorious issue that judges make decisions based on their own tacit political agendas.

In the play, the topic for debate is whether or not the current negative-rights Constitution should be abolished and replaced with a positive-rights Constitution. Negative rights are protection from unconstitutional government interference or denial of rights. For instance, it is unconstitutional for a police officer to exert brutal or inhumane conditions on someone without satisfying certain circumstances. A positive right would be the right to humane conditions when detained by police. Throughout history, the US Constitution has been lauded for its elegance and universality. Heidi’s questions inquire whether the Constitution that presides over a society full of injustice is really the best the country can do.