Ambiguous Constitutional Language; Judicial Philosophy and Establishment of Rights

Ambiguous Constitutional Language; Judicial Philosophy and Establishment of Rights

















Ambiguous Constitutional Language; Judicial Philosophy and Establishment of Rights

The framers wrote the constitution using general principles instead of details, and this has contributed to its ambiguity. The ambiguity of the constitution has had significant impact on policy. Judges act at their discretion when interpreting the constitution. This has meant that the interpretation has changed over the years, depending on the judges who are interpreting the constitution while making the ruling. Terms such as cruel and unusual punishment have changed over the years, as people have redefined their understanding of the terms. Other ambiguous terms in the constitution include due process of the law, freedom of speech, and unreasonable search and seizure. Although there have only been seventeen amendments to the constitution since its development, the ambiguity of the constitution has led to changes in the constitution. The different interpretations of the constitution have responded to the changing nature of the society.

The fourth amendment states, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The ambiguity of the amendment is that it is not cleat what probable cause means. The courts have had to interpret the fourth amendment when referring to electronic technology. The amendment does not in any way mention computers or computer related technologies, since they were not present at the time. The constitution does not mention anything concerning violation of people’s security in light of the terrorist threat, which has led the government to establish counter terrorism measures that may seem to violate the fourth amendment. The courts have had to interpret the constitution to reflect the changing society. Ambiguity in the fourth amendment has led to changes in the behavior and rules of the police force. Since they are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the people maintain law and order, the police officers are often caught at crossroads when investigating some incidents and crimes. The officers decrease their level of search intensity when faced with a highly ambiguous situation (Etarno, 2003).

The fifth amendment of the constitution states in part, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime… nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…without due process of the law.” This amendment prevents a person from, voluntarily or involuntarily, implicating himself in a crime. The clause has a due process clause, which ensures that the government respects the rights of the citizens, including the protection of a person’s property. The fourth and fifth amendments are reflections of each other, in that the purposes of unreasonable search and seizures in the fourth amendment are made with the intention of forcing someone to self-incriminate himself. In Boyd v. United States, the judge noted, “compelling the owner of goods that are subject of a forfeiture proceeding to produce his own private books and papers is compelling him to be a witness against himself” (Maclin, 2012, no pg)

Despite dealing with many cases involving the fourth amendment over the years, the Supreme Court has not been able to come up with specific rules that will ensure there is consistency in its application. The Supreme Court judges are well versed with the law, and they have examined many varied court cases that require the interpretation of the constitution. However, they have not been able to identify the underlying principles of the fourth amendment. A limitation of the Supreme Court ruling may be biased towards personal values or political opinions. When dealing with an ambiguous situation, the judges are supposed to acknowledge this limitation in their ruling. The court should choose the alternative that is most likely to benefit the party that is less likely to obtain a constitutional amendment to correct the interpretation of the court, despite the judges’ feelings and beliefs concerning the case (Baker, 2009)

When interpreting the case District of Colombia v. Heller, the majority justices ruled that the judges should interpret the constitution based on its original intended meaning, thus avoiding any complexities and changes that may have happened since the constitution was adopted. Such a ruling is a limitation on the part of the judges because it does not recognize the changes that have taken place in the country, and the complex nature of the law since that time. When making the ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger the judges failed in interpreting the constitution. According to the provisions of the fourteenth amendment, states should not abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen, deprive any person of life, liberty or property, or deny any person equal protection of the law. The law ensures that the states shall not discriminate any citizen through its laws. The government is to observe equal protection of all its citizens. In its ruling, the court generally acknowledged that it was okay to discriminate on racial grounds. It applied double principles because it would not have made the same judgment if the plaintiff were a student from a minority race. In making the decision, the court demonstrated its limitation when interpreting the constitution.

The Supreme Court is qualified to make policies based on its interpretation of the constitution. The court understands the importance of upholding and maintaining the law. Its insistence of making its rulings based on the provisions of the constitution means that it recognizes the constitution as a way of protecting the people and ensuring that they have their rights. By so doing, the Supreme Court ensures that it applies the same laws to everybody irrespective of the person’s status or position.



Baker, A. L. (2009). Constitutional ambiguities and originalism: Lessons from the spending power. Northwestern University Law Review, 103 (2), 495-549

Eterno, J. (2003). Policing within the law: A case study of the New York City police department. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

Leef, C. G. (2003). Does Higher Education Benefit from Racial Preference in Admissions? Retrieved from

Maclin, T. (2012). The Supreme Court and the fourth amendment’s exclusionary rule. Oxford University Press

Calculate your order
275 words
Total price: $0.00

Top-quality papers guaranteed


100% original papers

We sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands.


Confidential service

We use security encryption to keep your personal data protected.


Money-back guarantee

We can give your money back if something goes wrong with your order.

Enjoy the free features we offer to everyone

  1. Title page

    Get a free title page formatted according to the specifics of your particular style.

  2. Custom formatting

    Request us to use APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, or any other style for your essay.

  3. Bibliography page

    Don’t pay extra for a list of references that perfectly fits your academic needs.

  4. 24/7 support assistance

    Ask us a question anytime you need to—we don’t charge extra for supporting you!

Calculate how much your essay costs

Type of paper
Academic level
550 words

How to place an order

  • Choose the number of pages, your academic level, and deadline
  • Push the orange button
  • Give instructions for your paper
  • Pay with PayPal or a credit card
  • Track the progress of your order
  • Approve and enjoy your custom paper

Ask experts to write you a cheap essay of excellent quality

Place an order