Summary Of Speech To The Federalist Society Lawyers Division By Edwin Meese

945 Words2 Pages

In "Speech to the Federalist Society Lawyers Division", made by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Meese describes that the proper way to interpret the Constitution is by following the intent of the words originally meant by the Founders. Meese believes that the Constitution is very clear on how it should be interpreted because it itself is a written document with meaning behind the words that the Founders intentionally wrote: “...instead of trying [to find], what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one, in which it passed,” (Meese). With this, people should not try to stretch the words of the text to fit their own interpretation, because the Founders were clear on what their true …show more content…

Since Meese believes that the Constitution needs to be interpreted in the way that the Founders originally intended it to be, it allows for one, very specific interpretation, in which the Judicial Branch as a whole can judge things on, therefore not allowing personal interpretations to obscure rulings. Brennan’s viewpoint on interpreting the Constitution under the lens of modern understanding means that the Constitution is always going to mean different things, and the values will not stay the same. This is dangerous because what was deemed constitutional 50 years ago may now be unconstitutional, or vice versa. With this, the Constitution would not really have a backbone because the meaning of it is always changing. Also, the interpretations that would be changing it is dangerous as well because the interpretations are coming from multiple people who most likely do not agree on all interpretations. 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 …show more content…

This is seen here where the majority “...embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “‘public purpose’” (QUOTE). Those that viewed the Constitution this way ultimately changed the meaning of it because of their own interpretation. Those in the Supreme Court whose views align with Meese caught on to this, “The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for ‘public necessity,’ but instead for ‘public use’” (QUOTe). These people believed that it is hard to stay true to the Constitution by people inserting their own viewpoints into the text. All in all, the debate on how to properly interpret the U.S. Constitution will continue. People like Meese believe that in order to keep the integrity of the original text, people should interpret the Constitution as the Founders meant it to be. Others may disagree, like Brennan, that the Constitution means different things throughout the course of American history and should be interpreted in the modern context of the

Open Document