Letters to the Editor

Scalia's interpretation places limits on justices' influences

Alex Rawson '01's Feb. 27 critique of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's textualist theory of Constitutional interpretation glosses over the true import of Justice Scalia's argument. Rawson states that textualism is intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority, which is true enough, but he misses the crucial point that textualism also prevents the tyranny of the judiciary. Rawson, while endorsing the "living Constitution" fails to acknowledge its consequences.

Justice Scalia rightfully objects to those who argue that the Constitution means whatever it ought to mean in the context of modern society (this, of course, is the "living Constitution" view). Doing so is simply an indirect way of ensuring that justices can import their own set of values into the text of the Constitution and foist those values on the public. If the rights granted by the Constitution can change, appear, disappear and reappear again only depending on what is "right" in current times, the political and ideological views of Supreme Court justices will dictate the meaning of the Constitution. Why? Because people see what is "right" through the prism of their own moral compass, and justices are no different. As Justice Rehnquist notes, "[M]any of us necessarily feel strongly and deeply about our own moral judgments, but they remain only personal moral judgments until in some way given the sanction of law." Once the values of the justices dictate the meaning of the Constitution, then the Constitution ceases to mean anything at all. No longer are certain rights beyond the reach of government; the Court can take them away at will. All that need be said is that those rights no longer accurately reflect the values of society and, viola, the right is gone, replaced with a new right of the Court's choosing.

Proponents of a "living Constitution" apparently fail to apprehend that the very purpose of enumerating rights within the Constitution was to prevent change, not to facilitate it. The Bill of Rights was created because the Anti-Federalists (and eventually Congress as a whole) felt that certain rights were especially important, and they wanted to ensure that these rights were beyond the reach of a meddlesome government. As Justice Scalia puts it, "[a] society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that 'evolving standards of decency' always 'mark progress' and that societies always 'mature,' as opposed to rot." Congress created the protections of the Bill of Rights to ensure that future generations could not tamper with liberties that they felt were crucial for the United States. Madison felt that textualism was the only valid method of Constitutional interpretation because it ensured that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights would be the same in 2001 as they were in 1790.

A textualist like Justice Scalia, however, focuses on the original meaning of Constitutional provisions and then applies that meaning to the case at hand. It is the understanding of the constitutional provisions at the time they were enacted which is important, since a constitution is designed to preserve certain rights indefinitely. This view does not preclude the Constitution from being updated with the times, however; instead it ensures that the Constitution is updated by the appropriate body — the people of the United States. In order to affect a desired change, one may either muster sufficient support or oratory skill to convince his legislator to enact a law, or one may attempt to amend the Constitution. The merit of this method is that it denies the judiciary the opportunity to impose its values on society through the Constitution and thus preserves the integrity of democratic government. As Justice Scalia notes in his book, A Matter of Interpretation, the danger of a "living Constitution" is that "by trying to make the Constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all." Peter Shindel '02

Clarifying the issues and membership of the WROC

The opinion asserted by John Michael Guevara '01 that the working conditions for casual and permanent dining hall employees would improve if more students would work is not only problematic, but it neglects the real issues in the WROC campaign.

I also work as a student manager, in Butler/Wilson. The Butler/Wilson unit of student workers has a higher student population than Rocky/Mathey, and I can heartily attest that this increase in student help has not eased the situation for the casual worker in the dining hall. Guevara's statement assumes that WROC's issues deal with a heavy workload. This is much misinformed. Some of WROC's main issues are the pay rates and benefits upon which Guevara commented. How could extra student work aid this situation? Students working in the dining halls have certain duties; at the same time casuals have other duties. The two rarely overlap. Also, casuals are hard at work during the day when students aren't even available to work.

This "ironic" criticism is completely missing the point. The workplace issues that WROC has raised are in reference to sometimes unfair performance reviews and fear often instilled in casuals from professionals to keep quiet about any grievance dealing with pay or benefits. Extra student workers are not going to alleviate these problems.

The issue — lurking beneath the muck — that Guevara raises subtly is that he believes WROC is merely a student organization. A righteous WROC member, he seems to think, would make a sacrifice and work in the dining hall. WROC is not just a student organization. Politicians, religious organizations and dozens of faculty members are on board with WROC.

But more importantly there is a huge dining hall, maintenance, janitor and librarian contingency involved with WROC. Take a look at all the workers who wear WROC buttons. I am in constant contact with workers who support and participate with WROC. Yes, it would be nice if more students would make larger sacrifices for this cause, but to quietly claim that WROC is only composed of students who are not willing to work is to diminish the important force of the faculty and workers. Kyle Stout '03