Interpreting The Constitution : Originalist And Living Essay

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

The framers of our Constitution knew that time has a way of changing countries and their citizens. Our country was in a whirlwind of change in 1789 as people were experiencing freedom from the tyranny of England for the first time in their lives. Our country was being molded and formed into a great nation by the founding fathers. Expectations and rules had to be set to protect the rights of the minorities and majorities. Amendments to the Constitution were written to ensure equality for all in changing times.

Since this is an opinionated examination, I group myself as an Originalist. I trust that we ought to translate the Constitution indistinguishable today from when it was first composed. Originalism is championed for various principal reasons. To start with, it comports with the way of a constitution, which ties and restrains any one era from decision as indicated by the enthusiasm of the times. The Framers of the Constitution of 1787 recognized what they were about, shaping an edge of government for "ourselves and our Posterity." They didn't comprehend "We the general population" to be only a collection of people at any one point in time however a "people" as an affiliation, in reality various covering relationship, through the span of numerous

The Preamble is an opening statement of the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble replaced the Articles of Confederation. The 7 principles of the U.S. Constitution is popular sovereignty, republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, and individual rights. It was agreed by the representatives. This is about the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States is a complex idea, adopted at a fragile time in American history and is the framework for our government systems. There are different ways to view this document and different ways to interpret it, which can cause debate over the proper and correct way to go about interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice William Brennan, are two intellectuals with different methods and ideas about the correct way to interpret and enforce the Constitution. To understand how the Constitution works for the people of America, one must first understand about the Justices of the Supreme Court who have the power of enforcing the rules and regulations of Americas most prized document.

The Constitution has been a very effective set of laws for our country, but society was different at the time. At the time of its writing, slavery was not illegal, and the framers of the Constitution chose not abolish slavery. They also did not specifically give women the same rights as men. The framers did make it so the Constitution could be changed though, by adding a Bill of Rights that can be amended.

Throughout the United States existence, Americans have clung to the idea that all men are created equal. The Constitution of the United States of America has protected the rights of millions of people, and has influenced countries around the world. There are those who wish to see the document, that founded America, destroyed. They want to change it so it is no longer recognizable. The United States Constitution should not be reformed due to the possible destruction of what America stands for, a superb constitutional system, and the fact that it has stood this long. This makes the Constitution nearly perfect the way it is.

Should the Constitution be interpreted as it was written in the 1700s, or should it be interpreted as a living document that changes as time goes on? This is a question that many people have different opinions about. Scalia and Souter both make very good points in their arguments, but when it comes down to it, there is one option that makes the most sense. The Constitution was written centuries ago, and has changed many times throughout the years, and so has America, this is why I believe that Souter’s living Constitution is the best way of interpretation.

The resolution of the issues did not resolve the disagreement of the new government. The framers of the Constitution had dealt with many disagreements by papering them over with a series of compromises resulting with conflicts that could harm the new government.

During my junior year of Boston College, I enrolled in a Civil Liberties class. I honestly had no idea what to expect of this class and wether or not I would like it. It turned out to be my favorite class I have taken at Boston College and the key reason why George Mason is my top choice for law school. This class introduced me to Constitutional law and the different way’s judge’s interpret the Constitution. After learning the different theories, originalism (as defined by Scalia) really spoke to me. I have even decided to write a short thesis on the constitutionality of marriage within the United States through the eyes of an Originalist. Along with that I have written many articles concerning polygamy using Justice Scalia’s methods. After

debated on meaning since its creation, however holds strong authority for all American law after it. Gadamer would suggest that language is the structure of our reality and one thing that shapes human reality is the moral human statute we choose to bind ourselves to follow, but can we bind ourselves to a set of laws that were made nearly two hundred years ago? Using Gadamer’s understanding of language, interpretation, and even his defense of tradition and history, I will show that an Originalist view point of the constitution can hold some ground in the development of law today but should not be the authority, going into what an Originalist view is and using Gadamer’s philosophies to determine whether the Amendments “An interpretation of the

The Constitution of the United States as a written document provides the outline and guideline for not only our governments operations but also how these literal words written down are to be read. This very strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution is the way the Constitution had always been interpreted by Justices, which is why this method is often referred to as Originalist Interpretation. However, within the last century, justices have strayed from this method of interpretation and started to read between the lines of the Constitution and view it as a “living document” that could be interpreted in a variety of ways to fit the needs of the society and the times and place it is governing. The Supreme Court has traditionally had

The Articles of Confederation were approved by all the early American states in 1781, but by 1787, it was apparent that the Articles were insufficient for the young nation to operate on. A convention was formed with the priority job being to revise the Articles of Confederation; however, they only concluded that an entire new structure was needed to fulfill the demands of the growing country. The Constitution was then born. The Constitution provided the structure of government and power that was needed to achieve a strong union. This structure “saved” the American republic from collapse while under the Articles of Confederation.

I do not think that the Supreme Court should continue to rely on the public opinion as a way of determining “the evolving standards of decency.” My reason for this is because the people are like children and the Supreme Court our parents. People look up to the Supreme Court for guidance, answers, and justice. The courts should be the one to set the better example. We don't believe murder is right so the courts should enforce death as a punishment because it’s hypocritical. If the court abolished the death penalty over time, as the generations changed people would think it was the right thing to do because the highest court felt so and they are suppose to help guide us in the right direction towards justice.

From this day forward all nation including the parliament and Parliament Acts had to oblige to the Constitution. Any law, legislation, government or act in conflict with the Constitution will be disregarded and seen as invalid. This also meant that courts were no longer influenced by the government.