Reaping the Benefits of What was Once Sown
Is the Constitution of the United States of America a living document, meant to be molded to modern times, or is it meant to withstand time as-written? The previous question continues to be a hot debate among the current Supreme Court members. The supporters of the latter definition of the Constitution may also be referred to as originalists. There are several supporters on both sides of what seems to be a never-ending argument. Edmund Burke, widely believed to be the father of modern conservatism (Cohen), is an early proponent for originalism. Early advocates for the “living document” doctrine are Mary Wollstonecraft, an advocate for women’s rights in the 1700s (Cohen), and John Stuart Mill, commonly …show more content…
This is known because there is no provision in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that states that it should be repealed or remade over time. Our forefathers authored these documents knowing that changes would come in America’s future. Many non-originalists will point out that one of the forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, thought that the Constitution should be rewritten every nineteen years so that the new generation would not be ruled by the previous generation (Jefferson.) However, he declared this opinion in a letter to James Madison before the Bill of Rights came about. The Bill of Rights guaranteed United States citizens unalienable rights and liberties. These rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to a speedy trial, have gone undisputed for countless generations. Who would ever argue against these rights anyways? The United States has not repealed the Constitution or Bill of Rights for a couple of reasons: (1) the rights granted by these documents are fundamental rights rooted deeply within our country and (2) amendments can be made when the Constitution does not cover certain aspects of modern times. Therefore, originalism is the superior method of interpreting the Constitution and its amendments, because the authors of these documents meant every word of what they
Is the Constitution of the United States of America a living document, meant to be molded to modern times, or is it meant to withstand time as-written? The previous question continues to be a hot debate among the current Supreme Court members. The supporters of the latter definition of the Constitution may also be referred to as originalists. There are several supporters on both sides of what seems to be a never-ending argument. Edmund Burke, widely believed to be the father of modern conservatism (Cohen), is an early proponent for originalism. Early advocates for the “living document” doctrine are Mary Wollstonecraft, an advocate for women’s rights in the 1700s (Cohen), and John Stuart Mill, commonly …show more content…
This is known because there is no provision in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that states that it should be repealed or remade over time. Our forefathers authored these documents knowing that changes would come in America’s future. Many non-originalists will point out that one of the forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, thought that the Constitution should be rewritten every nineteen years so that the new generation would not be ruled by the previous generation (Jefferson.) However, he declared this opinion in a letter to James Madison before the Bill of Rights came about. The Bill of Rights guaranteed United States citizens unalienable rights and liberties. These rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to a speedy trial, have gone undisputed for countless generations. Who would ever argue against these rights anyways? The United States has not repealed the Constitution or Bill of Rights for a couple of reasons: (1) the rights granted by these documents are fundamental rights rooted deeply within our country and (2) amendments can be made when the Constitution does not cover certain aspects of modern times. Therefore, originalism is the superior method of interpreting the Constitution and its amendments, because the authors of these documents meant every word of what they