Constitution When Asking the Question

Constitution

When asking the question of how the Constitution attempts to fulfill the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the answer is actually not, what one might think. They work together; in fact, the Declaration of Independence serves as an interpreter to what the Constitution is talking about, as a guide to explain what is being stated. The Constitution attempts to add clarity to what has already been set into motion in the Declaration of Independence. Sandefur (2004), reports that in recent years, some writers, led particularly by Scott Douglas Gerber, have begun to devote serious consideration to the Declaration's constitutional role. These scholars are developing a theory of interpretation that Gerber calls "liberal originalism." According to this view, the Declaration is part of the organic law of the United States, and ought to guide our understanding of the Constitution. Liberal originalism contrasts with the "conservative originalism" of Robert Bork, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice Antonin Scalia, who view the Declaration as a world apart from the Constitution.

Sandefur, states that liberal originalism is relevant to a historical analysis of the Constitution because it is also relevant today as a method of interpreting the Constitution. Like original-ism in general, the liberal view is incompatible with attempts to use government to accomplish "social justice" or other ends inconsistent with the principles of individual liberty and limited government reflected in the Declaration. (2004) In conclusion it is evident that the two documents go hand in hand, and has been viewed as concurrent documents for quite some time. Therefore, the answer to the question is that the Constitution attempts to fulfill it by giving clarification and support to what the document is saying. This gives added guidance in constructing laws and principles for citizens to live by and guide the law of the land.