A house is being built on the vacant lot next door, causing me to make some adjustments. For one thing, after six years of exhibitionism before flora, fauna and field mice, I had to purchase curtains, although I have reached the age where it is doubtful a concession stand would be required to serve popcorn to those waiting to see me naked. But mostly the adjustments have been psychological. I had always imagined that one day I would buy the lot, proceeding along the well-worn path of upward mobility via increased land holdings. In addition, purchasing the lot would have the benefit of ensuring that, in one small segment of my life (the 80 feet north of my house, to be precise) nothing would change unless I wanted it to.

Even the most benign change involves some small loss and feeling of uncertainty, a fact that we in the Land of the Free respond to by purchasing as much insurance as someone can dream up to sell us, and flocking to McDonald’s and Starbucks where the risk of encountering the unexpected has been reduced to an acceptable two parts per million.

On a national scale, the question of change comes up regularly in the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution have gotten a lot of airtime this past year; political candidates are quite fond of invoking the intent of our illustrious forbearers and their most famous document for every conceivable cause, as if Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the others were offering their endorsements from the Other Side. The implication is that backing by the Framers of the Constitution would settle the matter of who or what to vote for once and for all, which seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. I’m willing to grant that they were a fairly intelligent bunch, in spite of the wigs, but they were not omnipotent.

Ironically, before the founders had even finished drafting the Constitution there was a demand to amend it – a significant opposition within the government felt that the document had the potential to be interpreted as a carte blanche to tyranny by those in power – a matter of some sensitivity for people who had so recently had their civil rights violated by the British. So during the debates leading up to its adoption, this group insisted upon immediate amendments to specifically itemize protections granted to individual citizens. Thus the Bill of Rights was born, comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Over the next 213 years, we have added seventeen more, averaging a new Amendment every 12.53 years. Prohibition required two – Article XVIII to instate it and Article XXI to repeal it. I believe the language in Article XXI reads “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

The nine Supreme Court Justices - imperfect, opinionated and often politically minded human beings who eschew Barney’s and Bloomingdales in favor of slimming black robes – are charged with making decisions that affect public policy based on their interpretation of the rights and principles set forth in the Constitution. These people decided that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment barred individual States from banning contraception, that the Eighth Amendment’s declaration against “cruel and unusual sanctions” could stop a practice of enacting the death penalty in a discriminatory manner against ethnic minorities and the indigent, and that the First Amendment’s freedom of speech applied to creators of political cartoons when the politician sued in outrage. Regarding the fate of cartoonists, in 1988 the Court declared “public figures have a diminished right of privacy with respect to political cartoons and/or other public criticism of their persona or work. “Outrageousness” of a parody is not sufficient to show damage, and figure cannot recover damages for “emotional distress.” I’m personally happy about this decision, because when things are not going my way, there’s nothing like a good political cartoon to lift my spirits, and I’d hate to have them disappear due to skittish publishers and skyrocketing legal bills.

This is big stuff, and the decisions reflect each Justice’s personal belief regarding if and how we as a nation should change in relation to what was set forth in the 18th century. Although there are a number of different views as to how best to approach interpretation of the Constitution, the two main camps are the Originalists and the Modernists, aka Non-Originalists. Originalists believe that interpretation is solely a matter of determining the original intent of the Framers and applying it to the matter at hand. Proponents of this view look to contemporary writings of the Framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers and notes from the Constitutional Convention for guidance when the Framers’ intent is not clear; current society is not a factor. Modernists, on the other hand, take the view that original intent is just one aspect to be considered. Their’s is the concept of the Living Constitution – one that slowly adapts and changes to reflect the realities of the time and the values of the population. This sounds very sensible when you agree with said values, and like an abuse of our justice system when you do not.

In an optimistic article about the remarkable unpredictability of history, Howard Zinn, author of The People’s History of the United States, talks about how many institutions have crumbled, grassroots movements have risen, rebellions have erupted and empires have fallen in ways and at times that no one expected. We have inherited a legacy of change, and this is what we will pass on to our children. He makes the point that apparent power has, again and again, proven vulnerable to human forces of wit, ingenuity, courage, patience, unity, sacrifice and determination. These are our constants, our ballasts on chaotic seas. Perhaps it is these forces that the Court should keep in mind as the foundation of a people and the heart of a nation.