Marshall And Constitution
In Thurgood Marshall's "A Bicentennial View
From the Supreme Court",
Thurgood Marshall argues that the United States
Constitution bicentennial
celebration should not be commemorated with narrow
views concerning the birth of
the document, but rather should be seen as a
living document, one which has been
dramatically altered to reflect the
changing views or society. Born from this
ideal, Marshall contends that the
Constitution should be placed into perspective
with events in U.S. history,
which followed its inception. Marshall adds that
society should neither view
the Constitution as a flawless governmental charter,
nor its "framers" as
sheer geniuses. He instead points to the paper's
subsequent alterations,
which helped it evolve to its current state. Marshall
maintains that the
framers were individuals who either compromised their own
moral beliefs or
were obvious hypocrites. Marshall's draws his logical
conclusions from
specific events in U.S. history. Marshall does not believe the
United
States is an impressive nation because of its Constitution and its
founders,
but rather it is only recently noble because of those individuals
who
"suffer[ed], stuggle[d], and sacrifice[d]" (Marshall 304) for
freedom
and turned the tide of popular opinion. Marshall views the
bicentennial
celebration as "oversimplified" and believes it it
"overlook[s]
the many other events that have been instrumental to our
achievement as a
nation" (Marshall 303). He discusses the obvious fundamental
flaw with the
Constitution: its deliberate exclusion of the abolition of
slavery. Marshall
argues that the slavery issue illustrated the corrupt
understanding and
forethought of the founding fathers and how they refused to
address such a
critical issue. In his essay, he makes two points concerning
the founding
fathers omission of the end of slavery. In order to preserve the
union, the
Constitutional framers compromised the economic benefits for
both the northern
and southern regions of the colonies versus the rights of
slaves. However, in
the Constitution, the representatives openly referred to
them and their
constituents as "We the People" (Constitution). The framers
also
advanced the principles from the Declaration of Independence that "all
men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of
Happiness" (Declaration). However, Marshall ponders how these
individuals,
with their great wisdom, could one moment espouse the principles
of personal
freedom, and then condemn their fellow man to a life of servitude
without the
above stated rights. Marshall also questions how Gouverneur
Morris, delegate
from Pennsylvania, could openly denounce slavery, but
hypocritically approve a
government which allowed it. Nevertheless, Marshall
does not place all fault
with the framers. Observing the actions of the
Supreme Court 70 and 170 years
later, he concludes that the court continued
the mistakes of the past. Marshall
cites the court's opinion in the Dread
Scott case as an example of the continued
ignorance of the legal system
toward the black race. Marshall illustrates that
Chief Justice Taney
accepted the notion that the founding fathers were flawless
because he took
their opinions as pure fact. " 'We [Supreme Court] think
they [slaves] are
not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to
be
included....They had for more than a century before been regarded as
beings
of an inferior order' " (Marshall 303). Marshall demonstrates that
Taney
and the Court made their decision on the basis of historical
precedence. Instead
of reevaluating the meaning of "all men are created
equal"(Declaration)
and the morality and humaneness of slavery, the Court
merely reaffirmed a
hypocritical idea of 70 years ago because of the narrow
view of infallibility
granted to the Constitutional framers, Marshall argues.
Despite the addition of
the 13th and 14th amendments, which ended slavery and
quaranteed equal rights to
all men, respectively, it was another 100 years
before the Court eliminated the
segregation that existed. Although Marshall
continues to question the decisions
of the Supreme Court, he brings to the
forefront the legal and social
principles, which have altered through time to
permit the society that exists
today. He does not view the first version of
the Constitution as the factor for
today's equality. Rather, Marshall focuses
on the greatness of the subsequent
changes. To fully understand this,
Marshall unionizes the legality concept. He
states that blacks were "enslaved
by law, emancipated by law,
disenfranchised and segregated by law; and
finally, they have begun to win
equality by law" (Marshall 303). It is here
that Marshall makes his most
important point and asks for perspective about
the celebrations and that
individuals realize the struggles of the
individuals who yearned for freedom and
the Constitutional vibrancy they
helped create. Marshall sees that the
Constitution is now used as a
backdrop for equality because of the progresses
society has made with its
views about slavery and blacks. It is for these
reasons that the Constitution
is a great document, not because of the
founding
fathers.
Bibliography
"The Constitution of the United
States of America". 1787.
"Declaration of Independence". 1776. Marshall,
Thurgood. "A
Bicentennial View From the Supreme Court". The United
States