Interpreting and Correcting the Constitutional

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

The constitution guarded against tyranny by giving us federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and large vs. small states. The constitution was written in Philadelphia in the year of 1787. This established America’s national government and fundamental laws

The Preamble is an opening statement of the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble replaced the Articles of Confederation. The 7 principles of the U.S. Constitution is popular sovereignty, republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, and individual rights. It was agreed by the representatives. This is about the U.S. Constitution.

Michael, I believe that we are sharing the same point of view. I am agree with you that there are several differences between what we are experiencing those day and what our constitution founders experience decades ago. I am sure that if they still alive, they will call for more amendments, which some of them seem rational. Like you said, the constitution has some of the weakness that must be taken into consideration. It is time for our legislators to make some actions that might clear some of our constitution’s ambiguity. Like I mentioned above, everything is changing. For instance, the technology that we use a decade ago becomes updated and beyond now. Something for some laws. They need to be updated as

During his opening statement, Scalia employs rhetorical questions in order to elucidate that Americans’ lack of knowledge of the government forces judges to firmly abide by the United States’ unparalleled Constitution. He postulates, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” The reality that “never more than about 5%” of his audience, who are “interested in the law,” has delved deep into the document portrays them as ignorant. With this concern, Scalia expounds upon his originalist ideals and encourages rivaling judges to alter their opinions of a flexible Constitution. Scalia credits his argument through the Framers who illustrated the significance of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Due to the fact that Americans are incapable of thoroughly interpreting the government, he attests that judges must abide by the precise words of the Constitution. Scalia advises his audience to

The Constitution (LEQ) The Constitution is a document that basically frames out the entire government of the United States of America. It was created because the Articles of Confederation wasn’t powerful enough, and the forefathers believed that the country wouldn’t survive as long as the government was being ran how it was. In some ways the Constitution is a continuation of the Articles such as Enlightenment ideals. However, the Constitution was also a major departure from the Articles in regards to federalism, and diplomacy.

Due to new political philosophies sprouting from the European enlightenment, many societies found themselves deciding between the conventional absolutist government, and the revolutionary constitutionalist government. Ultimately, constitutionalism was the most effective form of government during 17th and 18th century Europe because it best protected the natural rights of citizens and prevented tyranny and corruption.

The Constitution of the United States is a complex idea, adopted at a fragile time in American history and is the framework for our government systems. There are different ways to view this document and different ways to interpret it, which can cause debate over the proper and correct way to go about interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice William Brennan, are two intellectuals with different methods and ideas about the correct way to interpret and enforce the Constitution. To understand how the Constitution works for the people of America, one must first understand about the Justices of the Supreme Court who have the power of enforcing the rules and regulations of Americas most prized document.

There has been much controversy in the recent years regarding whether or not the U.S. Constitution is still able to deal with contemporary problems or if it is out of date. Most individuals who feel inclined to criticize the document emphasize that a lot of things have changed since it was first issued and that it is absurd for someone to consider that its principles still apply today. The people who devised the constitution were unable to foresee the conditions that the U.S. might one day experience. Even with this, it is difficult to determine whether the constitution is actually out of date or not when taking into account the multiple similarities between individuals in the late eighteenth century and the twenty-first century.

What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit? Why? The most likely court with jurisdiction over Tanya's suit will be the federal court in the state of Confusion. That is because Tanya's suit raises a federal issue, that of the regulation of interstate commerce. Generally, such a case would be filed in the federal court in the same state where the alleged harm manifested itself. However, there is also a possibility that Tanya could seek to use the concept of "long-arm" jurisdiction (Nowak & Rotunda, 2007) to have the case adjudicated in the federal court in Denial based on the fact that the illegal regulation in Confusion affected some of the residents of the state of Denial, irrespective of where the harm was caused.

According to Antonin Scalia there are two types of approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalist and living. Which approach do you believe the Court should take? Why? How does this approach affect the policymaking process?

Antonin Scalia, who is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law in 1997. Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice since he is currently the longest-serving justice on the Court. Scalia was born in New Jersey, but attended public grade school and catholic high school in New York City. Later, he moved onto attending undergraduate school at Georgetown University, and then receiving his LL.B degree from Harvard Law School. After many years of teaching, serving in the Nixon and Ford administrations and advising, Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1986 to fill an open seat and has been there ever since. In 1997, Scalia decided to write A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law. This first part of the book is an essay titled "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws,” which talks about Scalia arguing that the common-law outlook is not appropriate for statutory and constitutional interpretation. The second part of the book includes responses from scholars who have read Scalia’s essay. These responses include diversity throughout their reactions, which makes the third part of the book even more interesting. The third part of the book concludes with Scalia’s responses to each of the comments, questions and statements that were directed toward him or his essay.

In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from “How to Read the Constitution” by Christopher Wolfe, and different source’s from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.

Traditional Originalism led the court as the method of constitutional interpretation until the late nineteenth century. Judges were compelled to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the provisions. The Originalism view interprets the constitution line by line exactly as the founders would have found it. Later, during the early twentieth century, progressives in the legal community proclaimed that due to the changing social environment as time goes on in the nation, the political system needed to be reconfigured. They thought that the political system needed increased national government authority and a modern administrative state. They also thought that the increased national authority and modern administrative state wouldn’t work well with the traditional Originalism interpretation of the constitution. After long political battles in and out of the court, they won the argument and the Constitution would be adapted without formally amending it. Debates were waged over whether or not the Constitution could be changed through interpretation instead of the originalist requirement of amendment, and over whether or not the Constitution was to be viewed as living. The notion of a “living constitution” was developed, and slowly set precedent as landmark cases made their way through the supreme court, and the interpretation of the constitution was put to the test.