The Framers Intent Paper HIS/311 January 1, 2013 Introduction The first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution are the Bill of Rights. They were written to protect the rights of American People. The amendments represent important ideas that affect everyone on a daily basis. The first amendment involves freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press. The original intent of for freedom of speech, along with current views, events, opinions, an evaluation of the affects
Firstly, The framers wrote the Constitution with the original intent that the philosophy of interpreting it would be strict. They wanted to clearly state exactly how the government will be set up and how the powers of it will be evenly distributed. If the framers were going to make a document that completes so many great objectives and perfects the flaws of the Articles of Confederation, why would they want the people who read the Constitution to interpret it loosely? Such a philosophy would defeat
Constitutional interpretation: originalism and activism. While the intent of the Framers should certainly not be ignored in reading and applying the Constitution’s words, it is important to view the document with a certain degree of modernity. The originalist approach towards
A significant strength of the Constitution is that if it is followed, its language clearly guides disputes and helps settle any debate over issues of religion and politics. The framers intended it to do so and made its language simple and clear. The question is why American citizens insist upon disregarding the Constitution’s language. A simple answer is that by doing so, various groups who attempt to twist the Constitution are attempting to do exactly what the document intends to prevent—the
Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, by Woody Holton is to demonstrate the authors view on the true intent of the Framers when writing the Constitution. Although at first glance the book may seem to uphold the idea that the framers wrote the Constitution in order to protect civil liberties, Holton has a different opinion. To avoid a one sided book, the author not only looks at the framers intent, but the struggles facing the American people. This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations
ultimate guide of principles for law creation and enforcement. With that being said, the words of the Constitution are unclear in many respects. Politicians have debates over the Constitution due to the reason that it is difficult to figure out what the Framers meant when they originally wrote the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to decide if a law passed by Congress is Constitutional. However, the vagueness of the Constitution allows for the Supreme Court
Now, before anyone thinks that I do/don’t advocate certain persons with felonies or mental incapacities having fire-arms, please allow me to put this into perspective: This is about the Framers’ intent regarding the Second Amendment. These other aspects of certain persons being barred create assent/dissent on their own merits of constitutionality. I do not wish to get caught in a debate about those aspects. I maintain my own opinions inre this aspect of the Second Amendment. I will say this: Not
fundamentally public text and called for its use to resolve public issues. If that is true, then the document must be interpreted from today's perspective - Judicial Activism. However, using only that approach would be saying that the work of the original framers was mute. This document is over two hundred years old and still very relevant to today's society. In my opinion, the court needs to find a fine line between activism and restraint or intentionalism
Constitutional Interpretation of Checks and Balances The problem of interpreting the Constitution and framer’s intent is a constantly permeating and troublesome question in the minds of Supreme Court Justices, judges, prominent politicians, and policy makers alike. It is a problem that has been pondered for years and years in the courtrooms and on paper with no real conclusion. One such essay arguing this dilemma is “How Not to Read the Constitution” by Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf
ensue on the safety of our nation. As stated in the second amendment of the constitution of the United States, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” ("The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription") The framers, however, could never have known the potential for destruction that our present weaponry can cause. So, the question to this day has been, to what degree should the infringement of our right to bear arms be prevented? There are many different possible