The Constitution is a remarkable document. Crafted by a group of men who had no notion of what the world would look like in the next few years, much less in 200 years, the document has served the people of the United States in an extraordinarily effective manner. It has provided the legal framework for working together to achieve common goals and to manage conflict in a peaceful and civil way. It did not do this by listing a catalogue of detailed prescriptions on specific issues; rather, it contains enduring principles and expresses values that are adaptable to changing circumstances. The Constitution established a Republic, not a pure democratic form of government. It protects against a "tyranny of the majority" by requiring that the "will of the people" conform to its provisions. In 1803 (Marbury v Madison), the Supreme Court arrogated unto itself the authority to interpret these principles as they apply to a specific situation.

The Constitution is designed to allow maximum freedom and privacy; government—at all levels—is restricted in how much it can intervene in people’s lives. Restrictions are allowed only when the government can show a compelling interest of society to do. There is a wide divergence among us, however, concerning what restrictions are justified. This often breaks out into bitter political battles. In the final analysis, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.

 I encourage the reader to examine the Constitution and then read the summary of how the Courts have interpreted laws over the years in four specific controversial areas of current interest.