As always, you can find the Dobbs v. Jackson decision here.

Paragraph 2 of 8

Sentence 3 of 6

This sentence seems to contain three claims:

“But when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution—the ‘great charter of our liberties,’ which was meant ‘to endure through a long lapse of ages,’ Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326 (1816) (opinion for the Court by Story, J.)—we place a high value on having the matter ‘settled right’.”

The claims:

• “[W]hen it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution [. . .] we place a high value on having the matter ‘settled right’.”
• “[T]he Constitution [is] the ‘great charter of our liberties.’”
• “[T]he Constitution [. . .] was meant ‘to endure through a long lapse of ages.’”

All three of these will remain undetermined, and for completely different reasons. Let’s look at them one by one:

• “[W]hen it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution [. . .] we place a high value on having the matter ‘settled right’.”

Based on what I’ve seen so far, this isn’t always true. Most of the claims I’ve determined to be true so far have been confirmation of an earlier assertion, and so far it seems to me that a thing having been said by someone a long time ago is enough to establish that as true in the Court’s perspective. That’s not good enough for reality, though. My view of this might be skewed a bit, since I’m only confirming what’s easily confirmed, but I have to leave this one undetermined.

The second sentence starts to ramp up the pathos:

• “[T]he Constitution [is] the ‘great charter of our liberties.’”

It’s the document that determines what the government can and can’t do, and declares that what it doesn’t specifically allow the federal government it reserves for the people. The phrase is a little dramatic, though. The Bill of Rights (which specifically charts liberties) amends the Constitution, and is technically a part of it, but since we can’t seem to agree on what it means, it’s not much of a charter. Or a chart.

The third might be false, though I wouldn’t declare it yet:

• “[T]he Constitution [. . .] was meant ‘to endure through a long lapse of ages.’”

The rhetoric gains altitude. But by whom was the Constitution “meant ‘to endure through a long lapse of ages’?” Certainly some of the framers of the Constitution saw it that way, but wasn’t there some Jefferson guy who thought we should revisit the document every few years or so? I feel like I’ve read that somewhere.

It’s pretty frothy thought, and it will take more consideration. These three claims remain undetermined:

• “[W]hen it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution [. . .] we place a high value on having the matter ‘settled right’.”
• “[T]he Constitution [is] the ‘great charter of our liberties.’”
• “[T]he Constitution [. . .] was meant ‘to endure through a long lapse of ages.’”