Liberal vs. Conservative Interpretations of the Constitution

The Signing of the Constitution

Two of the main schools of thought on Constitutional Law scholarship that are still relevant to this day are the Conservative and Liberal schools of thought.

The Conservative school of thought tends to believe that when trying to interpret the Constitution it is important to emphasize the beliefs that the Founding Fathers had at the time of the signing of the Constitution. The Conservative school of thought also tends to have a stricter interpretation of the wording of the Constitution and believes in limited government. It would not be stretch to say that Conservatives tend to see the Constitution as a Bible, with the Founding Fathers as prophets. Conservatives tend to view so-called “activist judges,” that is judges that have a set agenda, with scorn and distrust.

An example of the deification of the Founding Fathers

The Liberal interpretation of the Constitution tends to be more flexible and open to interpretation. Liberals tend to see the Constitution as a living document, that is something that can evolve and change with the times. The Liberal school of thought also stresses the importance of individual liberties and has faith in the judicial system.

Liberals stress the importance of civil liberties

There are strengths and weaknesses to both schools of thought, but I tend to believe that the Liberal interpretation is the better one. The Conservative school of thought tends to idolize the Founding Fathers too much, to the point where the Founding Fathers undergo the process of deification. Conservatives tend to forget that the Constitution is a document that was not written by Prophets, but by regular men who had flaws. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other Founding Fathers were slave owners and far from perfect as human beings. 

The Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, were complex figures in American history

This idolization of the past is dangerous since it prevents the evolution of our country from taking place. I find that the deification of the Founding Fathers in itself is an extremely dangerous interpretation not just of the Constitution, but history in general. By believing that America is the “city upon the hill” it leads people to believe they are superior to others and ferments the idea of American Exceptionalism. This belief in turn leads to the resentment of other countries who do not appreciate when America acts superior to that of other countries. 

The problems caused by the deification of the Founding Fathers

The Liberal school of thought is a more valid interpretation since it sees the Constitution as something that must be more interpreted as time goes by. The society of today is vastly different from the times of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution should be viewed differently for different eras.