Originalism

A hot debate relevant for today is the question of how the constitution is to be interpreted. When writing the constitution, the founding fathers were clearly living in an ern which entailed concerns that are different from concerns today. During the constitutional convention, men discussed debated until they agree on what should become the framework for our great nation. Because of this the constitution appears to be ambiguous on many particular issues which we face today. Are we then to address those issues in light of the context in which the constitution was written, or are we to view it as a living document that’s meaning changes with time? Beginning with Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in 1786 at the constitutional convention, arguments continue to emerge for both loose interpretation and strict interpretation. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese asserts his view in his “Speech to the Federalist Society Lawyers Division”. In his speech, Meese takes the time to discuss the Regan administration’s approach to interpreting the constitution proclaiming, “Our approach does not view the Constitution as some kind of super municipal code, designed to address merely the problems of a particular era – whether those of 1787, 1789, or 1868.” What Meese is implying with this statement is he (and the rest of the Regan administration), do not see the constitution as a document that cannot speak to issues of this age. Meese is convinced that the constitution is not bounded by…

I believe that these two justices’ jurisprudence, or philosophy of law, is shaped by their political ideologies. This is not to say, however, that I believe that the two justices’ political ideologies affect their ability to come to objective decisions since ultimately, their most important task is to remain impartial. The two SCOTUS justices are on the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. In addition to their opposite ideologies, the pair has two completely different philosophies of law…

All across the world, Christians of differing denominations have been interpreting Scripture in order to more clearly understand and learn about who God is. Likewise, I personally interpret Scripture in order to more deeply grow in my relationship with Christ. As exemplified through the interpretation of Ephesians 5:22-24 and Matthew 5:27-30, my personal analysis of Scripture is to know more about who God is and what He has to say. In essence, my original interpretation of Ephesians 5:22-24 is…

The literal rule is one way in which statues are interpreted. The courts do not subvert the law but just apply the law that is created by parliament. This rule gives all words their ordinary meaning and must be followed even if the result is absurd. In the case R v city of London Court Judge Lord Esher stated if the word of an act is clear then you must follow them even if it manifestly leads to an absurd result . Highlighting the absurdity of the literal rule Berriman a railway worker died hit…

reality, the responsibility of the judicial system is far from that generalized perspective, and this is where the great debate begins. When interpreting the constitution, there are two distantly polar ways of reading it. There are originalists (Scalia and Bork) who contend that it is important to uncover the framers’ intent when applying the constitution to today’s issues, while the living constitutionalists (Tribe, Dworkin, and Brennan) read the constitution in a modern context, providing for…

Originalism v. Judicial Activism Throughout the history of the United States of America, there has always been different controversies among our Constitution. To the best of their abilities the Supreme Court of the United States has resolved each of these cases in a manner relating to interpreting the Constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint have been at odds since the adoption of our Constitution in 1787. This continues to this time where the Supreme Court is still ruling on…

interpret the United States Constitution in its original sense. Modifying it to where more authoritative control can be given to law enforcement as means of ensuring protection can be intrusive to the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution. As such, taking the interpretational approach of Originalism when trying to apply the Constitution is, as Justice Antonin Scalia would have it, a “lesser evil.” Indeed, such an interpretation and application is not without definite fault. Yet for…

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…

describes the changes and demands of our judicial system. He not only supports an activist court but encourages o become more active to deal with the many modern complex issues America faces today. Young, Ernest A. "Judicial Activism and Conservative Politics." Colorado Law Review 73, no. 4 (2002): 1-78. Ernest Young’s article describes the paradox of being conservative and an activist at the same time. It uses the Rehnquist Court as an example. This article will be useful to explain the…

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…