Constitution Day: A Brief Summary

The lecture began with Dr. White, giving a brief history of the Constitution, and the reason Constitution Day is celebrated at universities across the nation. Dr. Natalie Johnson later started the lecture by reminding the audience of three recent Supreme Court cases between the years of 2014-2015. She mentioned that all three cases had a central idea of “sex and religion” in the 21st century, and recently needed interpretation of the Constitution in order to reach a decision. Those cases were Obergfell v. Hodges, Elonis v. United States, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch. Dr. Johnson explained that all three cases were prime examples of modern day interpretations of sex and religion within the boundaries

of the Constitution. It was very obvious that the central theme of the lecture was living constitutionalism.
When looking at all three cases, it was clear to see that issues of defining marriage, freedom of speech and religious rights have not been clearly defined by our founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

According to Dr. Johnson, in present day it is left up to the nine justices of the Court to interpret what the Constitution means, what can be implied from the Constitution, and what impact it has on the modern era. She explained throughout the lecture how important it was for the justices to interpret the constitution with an eye to modern day events. For example, Obergfall v. Hodges, a new landmark case that gave same-sex couples the right to marry under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, was granted by the Court interpreting the equal protection clause for a modern day event. Johnson explained that in order for the justices of the Court to come to a 5-4 decision, they first had to figure out how can the 14th amendment that was originally designed for former slaves, apply to same-sex marriage. This helped proved her point that sex in the 21st century is totally different from when the Constitution was first written, and in present day Congress and the Court sometimes have to show judicial activism. Marriage is originally defined between a man and a woman, but as the 21st century has evolved we know can define marriage between two men or two women. Johnson later argued that case now also brings the ground breaking to defining marriage in other

ways, but it is a start to “updating” the unknown or undefined rights of citizens under the Constitution.
The other two case were also used as examples to further explain why the Courts have recently shown progression in ensuring that sex and religion is refined in the modern era to protect to the new population. Johnson’s lecture helped me understand that, yes the Constitution is the supreme law of land, but it can only remain supreme if it continues to protect the people of the United States. I walked away from her lecture with the understanding, that growth and change is good in politics if there are supporting facts. The original Constitution was ratified almost 220 years ago, and if it is not interpreted to fit the present day issues, how will can it remain supreme? This question is simply answered by having the Supreme Court continue to interpret the Constitution regarding issues like sex and religion, the death penalty, education and race. In words of Justice Kennedy, “there has been enough debate by states now it’s for the courts to decide.” Which in my opinion simply means, enough with debating if such actions can be legal, let the courts reexamine the Constitution, see what can be done to protect the people. Overall, I can honestly say I enjoyed Constitution Day!