Interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America has always been a challenge for Supreme Court justices throughout America’s history. Many justices have tried to interpret the Constitution based on the social consequences of their ruling in comparison to the historical context behind the law being debated. The rift between adapting the Constitution in order for it to keep up with changing times and maintaining the original intentions of the framers poses many difficulties for the justices when interpreting the validity of a law in comparison to the Constitution. Because of this dilemma, various theories about how to efficiently interpret the Constitution have been created to help to the justices properly elaborate on the various
…show more content…
Morrison. The theory of natural law provides little credible support for the justices in deciding the case. Natural law proposes ideas that are contradictory to those of textualism; therefore, making them invalid for the justices to use to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
Natural law is the idea that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted as “what they should be,” and not what they literally are (Dana Rohrabacher, WHAT IS NATURAL LAW?, 137 Cong Rec E 3325, (1991)). This theory applies that basic human rights, like those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, are provided by the law; however, these rights also extend to what people might assume to be immoral, like rape. The theory is an appealing, unfortunately, it assumes too much about how people feel and less about what the framers wrote in the …show more content…
Morrison, the natural law theory would be illogical to apply. The natural law theory would apply that because rape can cost large amounts of money, it can affect travel among the states, and it is generally assumed to be immoral among the people, then the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 should be valid under the Commerce clause. The natural law theorist proposed that the plaintiff had her basic rights violated, and events like hers could affect other people; therefore, the Federal government should have power to get involved. If the court rules in favor of the natural law theorist, then it would allow Congress to regulate violent crime, thus preventing the costs of rape. By allowing Congress to regulate violent crimes, then they would have the power to "regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce,” (Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, at 613 (2000)). The framers had no intention to allow Congress to have so much power over the regulation of commerce; therefore, the theory of natural law is
Morrison. The theory of natural law provides little credible support for the justices in deciding the case. Natural law proposes ideas that are contradictory to those of textualism; therefore, making them invalid for the justices to use to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
Natural law is the idea that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted as “what they should be,” and not what they literally are (Dana Rohrabacher, WHAT IS NATURAL LAW?, 137 Cong Rec E 3325, (1991)). This theory applies that basic human rights, like those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, are provided by the law; however, these rights also extend to what people might assume to be immoral, like rape. The theory is an appealing, unfortunately, it assumes too much about how people feel and less about what the framers wrote in the …show more content…
Morrison, the natural law theory would be illogical to apply. The natural law theory would apply that because rape can cost large amounts of money, it can affect travel among the states, and it is generally assumed to be immoral among the people, then the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 should be valid under the Commerce clause. The natural law theorist proposed that the plaintiff had her basic rights violated, and events like hers could affect other people; therefore, the Federal government should have power to get involved. If the court rules in favor of the natural law theorist, then it would allow Congress to regulate violent crime, thus preventing the costs of rape. By allowing Congress to regulate violent crimes, then they would have the power to "regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce,” (Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, at 613 (2000)). The framers had no intention to allow Congress to have so much power over the regulation of commerce; therefore, the theory of natural law is