Edwin Meese Interpretation Of The Constitution

Whether one realizes it or not, the interpretation of the Constitution is a vital part of everyday life. Edwin Meese put forth one way: originalism, which calls the courts and judges to interpret the Constitution according to what the founders intended. Contrastly, William Brennan believed the document should be constantly evolving and adapting to the situations brought up in legal disputes today. While both men offered insightful arguments, Meese presents a case with which I agree. Kelo v. New London illustrates both these approaches. Two major ways to interpret the Constitution are expressed by Meese, who I agree with, and Brennan, and are illustrated in Kelo v. New London. Edwin Meese offers one option for Constitutional interpretation, …show more content…
He said that since the Constitution is vague, the Court must apply its generalities to the problems of today. It is a living document that can flexibly be adapted to contemporary issues. The words contained in it are a blueprint for government, but not the final say. In Brennan’s opinion, an old document written by a group of men cannot possibly encompass and apply to all the current problems. The Constitution is constantly evolving and has transformative values. Brennan sums up his argument eloquently in his “Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium” by stating, “The vision of human dignity embodied there is deeply moving. It is timeless. It has inspired Americans for two centuries and will continue to inspire as it continues to evolve. That evolutionary process is inevitable and indeed, it is the true interpretive genius of the text.” He is referring to the Constitution as an incredible document with the ability to adapt to the changing …show more content…
The founders created the Constitution to be timeless in its straightforward statements. If one leaves such a large amount of interpretation up to the Supreme Court, as Brennan proposes, corruption can easily take place. The founders were wise and I tend to align my views more readily with theirs than the leaders of today. The culture is transforming into a much more secular place where Christianity is looked down upon. Most of the founders valued religion. The Constitution formed this country and should still be relied upon heavily for governmental guidance.
In Kelo v. New London, two starkly different views were expanded upon. The majority embraced Brennan’s interpretive method, while the dissent favored Meese’s method. To the majority, what the Constitution said was not literal, and “public use” is equivalent to “public purpose”. They believed it was and is wise to abstain from rigid formulas in the Constitution in favor of freedom to determine the government’s power of the Fifth Amendment. Since the city’s plan served a public purpose, it adequately complied with the public use