Professor and Representative Debate Constitution

On Tues., Sept. 24, a panel was held in Boyd Hall to discuss the U.S. Constitution and its role in making law in the United States. Dr. Robert Egbert of the Political Science Department and Hon. Gregory Sorg, the state representative for Easton, debated the document's original intention, and how it affects American citizens through the Supreme Court.

Sorg, who considers the Constitution a stable document, spoke of how there is abuse of the document, in the way in which Judges interpret the Constitution and make laws off of the evolving standard of decency. "If the Constitution is a living document, then it means whatever the Supreme Court Justices think it means at the time," said Sorg.

Egbert thought differently. In his view, the Constitution is a living document, and its importance is held more in its values than a literal acceptance of the amendments. "An originalist view is unreasonable. It was a document drafted over 200 years ago, in a completely different world," said Egbert. "You can't take everything literally."

A large part of the debate was dedicated to discussing the role of judges in making law in the United States. Egbert stated that "These are people who are not bound to any election cycle, so they are set free from the polls of popular opinion." Sorg disagreed, citing how court appointments, especially on the federal level, are done by the presidential administration in power. Instead of judges making law, he believes that it should go to the legislature. "If you want a new law, legislate it," Sorg stated. Dr Egbert stood differently on the matter, saying that elections make legislators imperfect lawmakers, due to the need of making their constituents happy.

From that part of the debate, the discussion of the evolving standard of decency was raised. It shed light to how sometimes judges make bad decisions or cast down rulings that are highly unpopular. Both sides had a different view on the matter. Sorg believed that sometime, judges make horrible decisions, and refuse to back down from them, even if they are unpopular. "If the judges make a bad decision, they'll stick to it because they wish to maintain an image of infallibility."

Egbert agreed to a point. "There have been some horrible decisions cast down by the Supreme Court. But, if the court has really crossed the line, it will know the public's opinion, and some laws may not be enacted by the people."

In the end, both men appeared to have won and lost different parts of their argument. While there was disagreement on both sides of how to interpret the Constitution, both men were able to show that the document is paramount to how Americans live their lives in the United States.