Brennan declares that in several sections of the document, “The phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked” (383); however, he also believes (in contrast to Meese), that parts of the Constitution are too specific. Thus, although our current understanding of certain principles might be the same as that of the Founding Fathers, Brennan believes that we cannot implement those principles in the same way that early government leaders would have (387, 389). Perhaps Brennan’s most important claim, though, is that “The Constitution is fundamentally a public text…,” meaning that judges should not give advice based on what they believe the Constitution to say; rather, they should speak on behalf of the people and align themselves with what the country as a whole would interpret it to say (384-385). Thus, unlike Meese, Brennan believes that although the Constitution is a useful and important guide, its specific application, and even its very meaning, is subjective and can only be correctly …show more content…
Meese firmly upholds the view that Supreme Court justices should be subservient to the original intent of the authors of the Constitution, while Brennan is convinced that the meaning of the Constitution is determined by the pragmatic interpretation of the Court. After reading both arguments, I tend to agree with Meese’s ideas. I think we have little to fear from adhering to the spirit of the Framers in applying the Constitution, but we have much to fear from a modern, free-for-all approach to interpretation. The Constitution serves as the legal foundation from which we have built our civic society, so it should not be taken lightly. As Meese would likely point out, we can make amendments, as necessary, to address issues that the Framers either did not anticipate or did not specifically take the time to describe. Although public opinion may become corrupt and bad amendments may be passed, there is little danger that the addition of an amendment to the Constitution would threaten the stability of the government. The reason for this is that the ratification process is clearly set forth in the Constitution, and it requires a tremendous amount of cooperation and exertion at the national level to add a new element to our