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
...udicial branch of the American government must be checked by the legislatures of states. To prevent instances like this from reoccurring, it is essential for state legislatures to take preventative steps and draft bills that would further limit the ability of the government to appropriate private property while still protecting private property owners. At the federal level, since it is abundantly clear from the case of Midkiff that the Supreme Court will defer to the Congress to define “public use,” a constitutional remedy needs to take place in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. It would be essential that an amendment to the Public Use Clause would specify the guidelines and standards of a “public use” to preserve the original intent of the legislative authors and provide the necessary private property protection to which all all Americans have a right.
For example document a states, “sink the state government.” The letter from Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger mainly argues that the constitution is the best, and what it says should be done. Jefferson advocated for state’s right over national institution. He wanted more power to be given to the states. This document accurately supporters that Jefferson stood for his Democratic Republic's politics, they believed that the Constitution should be taken literally. Another example is from document d which states, “where is it written in the Constitution.” This shows Madison taking the Constitution strictly. This document talked about where in the constitution is stated that children can be taken away from their parents. He is taking the Constitution strictly, wanting to see where exactly does it give the power to take children away from parents. In this example Madison did not accurately characterize his party, because federalists believed in taking the Constitution lightly, but here Madison was taking the Constitution literally. Another example is from Jefferson writing a letter to Samuel Kercheval, “not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions”. In this example Jefferson can be seen against the Constitution. His political party believed that the Constitution should be taken literally, but in
Constitutional interpretation is the principle job of the Judicial branch, and citizens have a variety of earnest beliefs based off of the document as well. There were several incidents where Hennessey’s own opinions were present in his writing. While discussing the Second Amendment, he states, “ So, if “people” have the right to bear arms, government has the power to impose fair qualifications on that right” (p.95). I don’t have to disagree with this assertion to know that readers deserve to learn from unbiased materials. This is a fierce issue in our government, and many people contend that Second Amendment rights are absolute and should not be infringed upon. Other times, Hennessy presents both sides of an issue like whether the Constitution is a “living document” that changes as time passes, or what Textualists believe, which is that the constitution should be accepted exactly as it is written. The value of reading the
The Constitution of the United States explicates the enumerated powers that the people have granted to their public administration. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution would mean denying the government the powers granted to them to keep order, equality, and fairness. An expanded interpretation would “extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, and we might question the application of the term…” (244). It is the government’s responsibility to exercise powers that cannot be exercised by its governed people. There are no guidelines in the Constitution’s composition that discloses how to interpret the language; therefore, it is in the hands of three federal branches of government to decipher the Constitutions meaning.
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.
A magnitude of literary work will portray a Christ-like figure within, “This may surprise some of you, but we live in a Christian culture” (Foster 124). We may not always have blunt and obvious signs of the portrayal of Christ, but they are there. For instance, Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are both great representations of a Christ-like figure on the grounds of resurrection.
Through the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and thought have been implemented up until this point. However this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government more so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the duty to oversee the government, yet so many times they are disinterested and only seem to have an opinion when the government’s implications affect them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses question when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.
On September 17, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention sent their new constitution to the states for ratification. The Federalists highly approved of the Constitution because it allowed for a more central and powerful government that was previously undermined under the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalists, however, didn’t want a powerful central government, but, instead, powerful state governments; in response to the Constitution, many Anti-Federalists began writing essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it. In retaliation to the Anti-Federalists attempt at getting states to not ratify the Constitution, many Federalists developed a group of essays known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the ratification of the new law system.
...ailable. Charles A. Beard argues this point in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, stating that “The Constitution was essentially an economic document based upon the concept that the fundamental private rights of property are anterior to government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities.”
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
The debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 revealed bitter controversies on a number of issues that had been developing since the penning of the Constitution. The writers of the document knew that over time the needs of the nation and its people would change, and therefore provided for its amendment. But by not expressly delegating powers to specific organizations, whether the federal government, state governments, or the people themselves, they inadvertently created a major problem in the years to follow: Constitutional interpretation.Shortly after the Constitution's ratification, two distinct camps formed, each believing in opposite manners of interpretation. One group, the Federalists, led by the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, thought that the Constitution should be interpreted very loosely. He claimed that the Constitution contained powers other than those delegated or enumerated. These unspecified powers were implied powers.
There are two methods one can use when interpreting the Constitution. The first method includes not doing something unless the Constitution says that one can (i.e. unless the Constitution says one can do something, then one cannot). The other is where one can go ahead and do something if the Constitution doesn’t say one can’...
“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