Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Constitutional interpretation methods essay
Constitutional interpretation methods essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Constitutional interpretation methods essay
The Constitution is the skeleton of the United States. Nothing the United States does goes against what our leaders have interpreted The constitution to stand for, but interpretation is subjective. Without a standard lens to view this historical and legal document with, it is virtually worthless. The three primary viewpoints each have appealing characteristics to them. I think a mix between all three interpretations is the most sensible way to look at The Constitution, but Constructionism should be the predominant perspective on The Constitution. In interpreting the Constitution, Americans should consider the frame of society, but view The Constitution as a document that means what the founding fathers intended for it to be, and when all else fails, interpret the language exactly as it is written.
This disagreement travels back to the roots of The constitution, and begs the question: What is the purpose of The Constitution. This is the question that allows more than one interpretation to even exist because different people have different responses. I believe that the purpose of The Constitution was to establish a set of rules which the U.S. could govern its people by creating the
…show more content…
We’ve undergone extreme changes like our perspective on enslavement and African American rights, and gay rights. It would be foolish to say because the founding fathers held slaves, we too should have slaves because they made it legal in their time. Society bequeaths an eternally shifting ball of values that is composed of the morals of every member of that society. This makes it impossible to point to one set of values or morals that can be said to accurately represent the values of the population. Moreover, this viewpoint would allow people in positions of power like Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to promote their own agendas under the cloak of “the values of society” because of a “Living Constitution’s
Strict constructionists said that it was to be followed to the letter...if it wasn't in the Constitution you couldn't do it. They felt that it covered everything adequately and allowing a broad interpretation opened up too many possibilities.
The true ideas written in the U.S. Constitution will be debated for all of time. No one knows the exact connotation of the Framers' words, but in today's world they are interpreted as words of freedom and liberty. The argument over whether or not the Constitution is as liberating as it is perceived may never be solved. This historic document has some unfortunate undertones that give it a counter-revolutionary feel, but at the same time it is full of wisdom to keep the American Revolution alive. While no one will ever truly know which side of the Constitution to believe, it has done its' job very well up till now, and will for many years to come.
Thomas Jefferson once said “We hold these truths to be self–evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” When asked if I believe that the United States are living up to its founding principles, the first thing that comes to my mind is this quote and I have to say that America is not living up to its founding principles.
The US constitution was written with great vision to create strong nation. The bill of right were written, it provide all humans with rights. The writers of the constitution we hypocrites, they didn’t abide by what they preached. Thomas Jefferson wrote himself “ all men are created equal” but he owned slaves. The founding father didn’t look or even think about slavery when they wrote the constitution. They were pre-occupied in getting the southern state to join the union and sign the new constitution. They southern states believed that the federal government shouldn’t mess with the issue on slavery because slavery was a state issue.
The Constitution is the foundation of our county it represents liberty and justice for all. We are able to live freely and do, as we desire because of the constitution. The constitution was, signed September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It took time and many debates were held before an agreement was achieved in both the drafting and ratification of the constitution. These disagreements came with several compromises before the constitution was fully ratified on May 29, 1790, with Rhode Island being the last and the thirteenth. The First, challenge was the Articles of Confederation; it was a sort of a draft of the Constitution but was weak and inadequate. Second, obstacle was the Anti-Federalists fight for more
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
Remember earlier when I said that the Constitution can be interpreted many ways well, that’s how I view it also. I have been taught the Constitution in many different classes throughout the years going to school. I have been taught that the Constitution is a big old sheet of paper that lists all of our laws and amendments that the Founding Fathers made. To me these laws that make up
There are two major ways that the Constitution is interpreted. One of which is called the “Strict Constitution” of national law, an example of this would be the “Dred Scott decision. The other way is the federalist position, where the Constitution grants broad power to the federal government. Two great examples of this type of interpretation were Chief Justices John Marshall and Earl Warren.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
The Constitution needs to be interpreted from one viewpoint in order for the Judicial Branch to properly function, and this viewpoint should be that of the Founders, as suggested by
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
“The Constitution leaves in its wake a long legacy, forever shaping the fate of many other countries. Whether those countries are currently in a state favorable to liberty or not, it is undeniable that the U.S. Constitution’s principles have caused people to rethink how to organize their political systems” (Hang). Time has only added value to the Constitution, for every time we reference it in our lives it is a testament of our trust and loyalty in what it states about our rights as individuals and the role the government plays in our lives. When it was written, the Constitution was the law of the land that gave people rights they had previously lived without. Similarly, we live lives of choice and independence because of the same document while other countries limit all the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Simply put, “The Constitution is important because it protects individual freedom, and its fundamental principles govern the United States. The Constitution places the government 's power in the hands of the citizens. It limits the power of the government and establishes a system of checks and balances”
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there
In my opinion to the question. That is if I think that the framers intended for a strict or loose interpretation of the Constitution. To first answer this question, we need to define what a strict and loose interpretation means. Without that, we would have little understanding of what the question is asking.