I am old enough to remember the 200th anniversary of our country's birth. In 1976, the focus was on America and her achievements and not blurred with celebrating the birthday of a clown. This year, it is difficult to get in the "mood".
We have a Supreme Court that has proven itself a political tool of a hack. They have no direction and no standing. The Constitution is interpreted both as original (the intent of the framers at the time it was written) and living (adapts to changing societal values, morals, and historical contexts over time), based solely on political intent. To keep this succinct, I will give you one of each.
Original: How the Supreme Court decided a federal law stripping firearm rights from regular marijuana users violated the Second Amendment. They looked at the founding era (1791) that showed there were no laws categorically disarming people for using substances like marijuana in their off hours.
Living: How the Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizures) when it came to geofence warrants in Chatrie v. United States. Geofence warrants are when police don't have a specific suspect, so they ask a company like Google to give them location data of EVERY SINGLE smartphone that was near a crime scene during a specific timeframe. They considered the smartphone as a modern-day extension of our "papers and effects", thus an adaptation based on changes over time.
The Supreme Court's job is to resolve conflicts (the final arbiter when lower courts disagree on how to interpret the law - making sure it is interpreted the same way across the country), settle large-scale disputes (acting as neutral ground for legal battles between states or involving foreign diplomats), and to keep the government in check (ensuring that neither the Congress nor the President exceeds the boundaries of power set by the Constitution).
Where they fail in interpreting the Constitution correctly: I'm no lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but this is not that difficult. For example, when Justice Neil Gorsuch in Trump v. United States argued that the Executive Branch should have a similar protection to that which the Legislative Branch has in the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), granting him "immunity" for all "official acts" (What exactly ARE those official acts? Given up to interpretation, of course). He was INFERRING something that was not there. And if it was SUPPOSED to be there, the founders would have SPECIFICALLY put it there.
And why did he not interpret the Constitution correctly? Because apparently he NEVER READ the "preamble" to the Constitution, commonly referred to as "The Declaration of Independence". You want to know WHY they didn't grant the Executive Branch said immunity? Because they specifically stated that they did not want a "king" - a unitary that had absolute power to do whatever he wanted, not needing the approval or oversight for his actions.
So, on this 250th anniversary, when you are cheering the UFC fighters on the White House lawn, and skipping rocks on the green reflecting pool, and admiring the gold appliques super-glued to the walls of the Oval Office, don't forget that this is not just the anniversary of our country's birth, but a reminder that we shook off the shackles of a tyrant once.
Don't forget history, or we are doomed to repeat it.
-jp
©Emittravel 2026
