As the presidential election

squeezes down to the wire, for many voters the decision comes down to

one of which candidate will best represent the people of the United States

on Supreme Court appointments.

This next presidential term

is seen by many as pivotal on key issues such as abortion, public prayer,

and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear

arms," because it is expected that as many as three, possibly four,

Supreme Court appointments will be made by either George Bush or Al Gore.

With many of our most recent high profile court decisions, the margin

of ruling has been five to four. Even one judicial appointment could literally

tilt the axis on key issues in this country. In my mind, this is probably

the single greatest issue facing the voters now.

Al Gore has said that he "would

look for justices for the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution

is a living and breathing document that was intended ... to be interpreted

in light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."

What is critical here is to

know what Al Gore means by "interpret." Does he mean that to

interpret is to define, or does he mean that to interpret it to shape?

Based on all of the other Algoreisms witnessed in this race, and based

on his radical views in his book, "Earth In The Balance," I

would have to assume that he means "to shape."

This is a classic example of

relativism, or "situational ethics," which has been the hallmark

of the post '60s and '70s era "me generation." It's the mindset

that gave us the mistaken notion that right or wrong no longer matter.

Situational ethics looks instead at whether it "feels" right

or wrong for the individual.

The founding fathers, in writing

the Constitutional blue print for our system of government, envisioned

that their 1700s era perspective may not ring a persistent familiar note

with the evolving peoples of America, which is why they wrote in a provision

for amendment to the document. That process has been used quite profoundly

and aptly numerous times over the course of the past two centuries.

Had the visionaries for this

great republic envisioned the extremes to which our modern judiciary would

"interpret" the Constitution, and effectively "legislate

from the bench," I would imagine they would have included a more

specific check on that particularly destructive practice. Perhaps "we,

the people," should see to that amendment.

Al Gore promises to use a "litmus

test" for any justice that he might appoint if elected. That test

will be whether or not that individual will uphold a woman's right to

have an abortion.

I suspect that if a potential

appointee passes by that issue with Al Gore, there may be a few other

litmus test questions waiting in the wings, such as "does the 2nd

Amendment specifically mean that the people have the right to bear arms

or does that right only apply to a "well regulated militia?"

Another might be does the Constitution,

in preventing the "establishment" of religion, allow the government

to wipe away all vestiges of public expression of religion? Many have

argued, accurately in my opinion, that the prohibitions on all public

expression of religion in effect does constitute the establishment

of a religion atheism.

George Bush has said that he

would name justices to the Supreme Court who would "uphold the Constitution"

as written. He says there will be no litmus test hurdles in his appointment

process. Bush takes a moderate conservative approach to the abortion issue,

believing that it is not a protected right except in cases of rape, incest,

or to save the life of the mother. George Bush seems to reflect the view

of millions of Americans that modern government, big government,

has far exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction. That he would view the

Constitution as a sacred document is refreshing to me.

For those undecided voters

out there, ask yourself this question:

In whose hands do you trust

the Constitution of the United States?

[Your comments are welcome

at: [email protected].]