The Trial of Aaron Burr Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The Trial of Aaron Burr - Essay Example It chronicles not only the alleged attempt to suborn the sovereignty of the U.S. government in the western territories, but also a titanic power struggle between the judicial and executive branches of government. On a deeper level, it offers an early example of the predisposition for interpretation inherent in the Constitution – and its potential vulnerability to political conflict. The point upon which the prosecution’s case turned in Aaron Burr’s treason trial, whether or not levying war constituted an overt act, was contested during a period in which the fledgling American Democracy was testing the very nature of the Constitution and how the law of the land Name 2 was to be interpreted. In The Trial of Col. Aaron Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall renders an opinion on a motion to arrest evidence, in which he quotes from a preliminary opinion regarding the meaning of â€Å"levying.† The judge here accords with the argument put by George Hay, chief prosec utor in the Burr trial, by stating that â€Å"levying war is a fact in the Constitution of which force is an indispensable ingredient† (Carpenter, 444). ... ‘Real life’ interpretation Justice Felix Frankfurter would speak to the issue of interpretation nearly 200 years after the Burr trial: â€Å"The words of the Constitution are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life† (Frankfurter, 1941). In the opinion referred to by Justice Marshall (mentioned above), a pragmatic appraisal of the situation is an attempt to apply the precepts of logic and common sense. â€Å"To constitute the fact of levying war, it is not necessary that hostilities shall have actually commenced, by engaging the military force of the United States; or that measures of violence against the government shall have been carried into execution† (Carpenter, 444). Name 3 It is perhaps surprising that Chief Justice Marshall should have adhe red to such a strict rendering of the Constitution in light of the unstable political climate in 1807. With the new Republic in a fragile and unsettled state, battles over Federalism vs. States Rights, the geographic destiny of the new nation and which foreign powers should be sought as allies (and which to avoid) created a turbulent, even dangerous political situation. As such, one might expect a far more in-depth interpretation of the law, which, after all, must be dynamic enough to address (without being determined by) existing need and current circumstance. As well, one must bear in mind that Constitutional interpretation was as yet a largely unplowed field. Should the document’s language be interpreted according to the framers’ intent? Should the Constitution be regarded as