The Principle Battle

In reading Craig's post about equality vs. fairness, I'd like to present an idea about principles, mainly the principles upon which our society is founded and their relationship with our current form of government. Throughout our country's history there have been less then twenty changes to the structure of our democracy, the Bill of Rights notwithstanding. To me, it is no mystery why so few amendments have been adopted. If you ask yourself, what belongs as an amendment and what does not, you first have to answer the question of what an amendment is. Some people seem to think that laws struck down by the Supreme Court can be resurrected by turning them into amendments. The many incarnations of the "Flag Burning" amendment come to mind. The Constitution of the United States of America is not just a list of laws, it is the framework in which laws are set, rules for how government is expected to work, and processes for interpreting conflicts.

A society of principles naturally wants to codify them. Principles are the pillars on which expectations of behaviour are set. They help us define what is right from what is wrong. What happens, though, when an issue arises that rides the boundary between two principles? Where two different camps both claim to be right. If the different camps beliefs are based on differing principles, they are setting up for a battle royal. We are taught the difference between right and wrong. If you know you are right, because you are defending a principle, you will take a dim view to being essentially declared to be wong which is what each side in in for when two principles are pitted against each other. How can one principle be more 'right' than another?

The case of Terri Schiavo seems to be a good example of what happens when a society has a dispute between principles; in that case being the principles of the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. Terri's parents were advancing the argument that since she was still alive, that should take precedence over her husband's right to make the final decision. The contingent that thought life was the more important of the two principles fought tooth and nail at every level; a testament to the depth of their convictions. Another contingent thought that if the law said that the husband could make that decision, it was incredibly pretentious to think that some judge or legislature should have the final decision that intrudes on the very intimate relationship between a husband and wife.

So, what do we do when we find ourselves in a situation in which two principles face off? I contend that laws are where we define what is 'Right' and the Constitution is where we define what is 'Fair'. We are being fair when we legislate that murder is not right. What about when a law defines what is right, but cannot be applied fairly? Using a chart we can come up with combinations of these two principles, hopefully it will be instructive.

-----|1 2 3 4
Right|Y Y N N
Fair |Y N Y N

1) Both Right and Fair - no problem
2) Right but not Fair - blue laws? (Compton acts?)
3) Not Right but Fair - poll taxes? Jim Crowe?
4) Neither Right nor Fair - any suggestions?

It seems to me that there have been several situations in our history where a law went from universal acceptance to being divisive. The courts find themselves in the middle of the fray, as always. Since they cannot bring action on their own, you can even say they are our country's eternal peacemakers in these border wars. They have to be armed in and of themselves or else they have no power to enforce their decision and worse yet, would be plowed under or ignored during disputes.

So, have I made any sense? I'll have to continue this topic, it's too meaty to cover all at once.