The Danger of Allowing Good Intentions to Override the Constitution

Walter E. Williams and the authors Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R. C. Gutzman emphasize that policies should be evaluated based on their effectiveness, not merely on their intentions. This approach calls for a serious examination of laws and their alignment with constitutional values, particularly in the face of moral dilemmas such as slavery and segregation.

1. Judging Policies by Effectiveness: Walter E. Williams asserted that good intentions do not justify ineffective policies. Politicians can claim good intentions, but when these policies fail, they often evade accountability by emphasizing their good motives.

2. Constitutionality vs. Morality: Woods and Gutzman argue that a law's constitutionality is distinct from its moral standing. Many supported unconstitutional laws, believing they served a greater good. For example, during the slavery debate and later during Jim Crow, the morality of an action led many to overlook constitutional principles.

3. The Debate on Slavery: The conflict between states, especially between abolitionists and proponents of slavery, highlighted the struggle between moral imperatives and constitutional adherence. Figures like Charles Sumner voiced strong moral arguments against slavery, yet this moral stance did not resolve constitutional questions.

4. Constitutional Interpretations: There is a concerning trend of interpreting the Constitution to align with perceived modern moral standards, often retroactively. The Fourteenth Amendment serves as an example of how its interpretation has transformed significantly from its original intentions, leading to differing views on issues like racial segregation.

5. Implications of Flexible Constitutional Interpretation: Allowing subjective interpretations of constitutional principles enables government to justify actions that may deviate from constitutional mandates. This flexibility can lead to abuses of power and arbitrary governance.

6. Amending the Constitution: The authors suggest that, instead of ignoring constitutional parameters, such as in the debates surrounding the citizenship of freedmen, society should amend the Constitution. However, practical challenges in garnering support for amendments, especially from dissenting states, complicate this process.

7. Empowering Citizens: The ideal recommendation is to decentralize power, enabling ordinary citizens to have greater decision-making authority. This reduces the risks associated with concentrated governmental power, aiming to foster a more just society.

The discussion led by Williams and further echoed by Woods and Gutzman showcases the critical need to evaluate laws and policies based on their outcomes and constitutional alignment rather than solely on moral intentions. The issues surrounding slavery and racial segregation illustrate that moral motivations do not exempt one from constitutional scrutiny, necessitating a more cautious approach to governance that respects the rule of law. 

https://mises.org/mises-wire/danger-allowing-good-intentions-override-constitution