Originalism While both sides around the interpretation of the U.S. constitution have their arguments, in my opinion originalism stands out as the correct approach on its interpretation. I think we should interpret the constitution based on what it was meant to be written for, at least for the most part. I feel originalism is important as it keeps things steady, predictable, and fair in the U.S. legal system. As we explore the topic further, we will see why originalists like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas make a fair argument as to why originalism helps prevent judges from making decisions based on their own beliefs. With originalism, we can stay true to the constitution and make sure our legal system is fair to everyone. In my opinion, Originalism is needed to respect the democratic process. …show more content…
If Congress were to be changed, in my opinion it should be done by the will of the people, through their elected representatives. The constitution could be amended with several branches of Congress approving it, but any attempt from a single branch alone violates the balance of power.In my opinion I do agree with this perspective as if the constitution were to be changed, it should be done through the amendment process and not done through a different perspective of a member of the Supreme Court, who has a lot of influence on the interpretation of the constitution. Moving on, from the principles of Originalism, my next argument will be around how originalism promotes a stable and predictable legal system in the U.S. Government. Stability is a crucial part of the legal system as it ensures that laws are applied consistently over
In Mark R. Levin’s book, THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS, he proposes amendments to the Constitution called “The Liberty Amendments” (Levin 18). His hope for producing this book of proposed amendments is to “spur interest in and, ultimately, support for the state convention process.” (Levin 18). Levin states he undertook this project because he believes the way that the Constitution, as originally structured, “is the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of federal Leviathan” (Levin 1). Levin believes that the Congress operates in a way that was not intended by the Framers of our country, and has become oppressive to its people in its laws (Levin 3). He also
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
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 Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
It would be most problematic if we had a strict "originalist" judicial history because blacks would be only 3/5 of a person, women would never have been enfranchised, and the Senate would still be chosen by the House of Legislature. The Supreme Court (consisting of the most learned and able legal experts in the country) should have the ability to interpret certain aspects of the Constitution in order to prevent the Constitution from becoming a dated, historical document. Problems will continue to rise that the fathers of this country could not have possibly envisioned. Robert Bork's "originalist" view is far too restrictive in practice to allow the Constitution to be as vital today as it was 200 years ago.
...e protection of individual liberties as well as the expression of self interest were of the highest importance when creating the Constitution and a new system of government. The idea of separation of powers along with checks and balances, coupled with an encouraged environment of expression eventually led to the ratification of the Constitution with a Bill of Rights in 1791 and the birth of dual federalism.
By giving the courts the power to overrule laws that are unconstitutional and allowing them to exercise Judicial Review, they are better equipped at protecting the civil liberties and human rights of society as a whole. Different political parties often have different interpretations of what laws should be in effect, but these laws do not always serve society as holistically as needed. In Federalist 78, Hamilton explains this by stating, “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body” (The Federalist No. 78). While the Judicial branch of government may not be the most powerful, it is a very important component of our government that regulates the way that society functions and even how our needs are met. Without, we would be at risk of tyranny and societal destruction from government
When it comes to the Constitution, I believe it should be updated every couple of years, because our world and technology is changing. By having the same laws, we are not moving on from the past and advancing. We do need more equal representation when it comes to Senate, and we need more rights for women, Native Americans and African Americans. Since the Constitution is outdated and was mostly written by a group of men in 1787 that were mostly republican, it is seen as more of a republican document than a democratic
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
“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”
During the birth of the new nation, the Founding Fathers sought to construct a system of checks and balances which were catalyzed by the common fear of tyrannical government and based upon the ideologies of the Enlightenment. In 1787, while the infant nation was wobbling on the weak footings of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention was adjourned and disputes around power and representation mustered new plans for the future. Although the Convention intended to revise and rework the Articles, James Madison, alongside...
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
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
Cloning is defined as the process of asexually producing a group of cells, all genetically identical, from a single ancestor (College Library, 2006).” Cloning should be banned all around the world for many reasons, including the risks to the thing that is being cloned, cloning reduces genetic differences and finally it is not ethical. Almost every clone has mysteriously died even before they are born.
Creation Vs Evolution “The greatest mystery of existence is existence itself” (Chopra). Chopra, a world-renowned author, perceives the existence of life as a truly mystifying celebration. The pending question that many scientists, and even theists, attempt to answer is how life ultimately began. Currently, the mystery is left with two propositions, evolution and creation. While both approaches attempt to answer the origins of life, evolution and creation are two contrasting concepts.