Originalist Interpretation

The job of a supreme court justice is no easy task. They are given situations that others could not solve and must interpret the constitution in an unbiased way to see what the solution is. Interpreting the Constitution is especially difficult because its ratification was over 225 years ago. This means that the judges need to keep the constitution up to date, while also making sure not to lose the original purpose of each amendment. The constitution

The views of Scalia and Brennan of our common law judicial system are very oppositional. Justice Brennan is what is considered a non-orginalist and Scalia would be a considered the opposite which is, an orginalist. Both of them agree that interpreting the constitution is so crucial to our democratic system and to making laws. However, Scalia believes that judges shouldn’t have the power to interpret the constitution into common laws because it allows for too much bias in our court system. He believes it gives the courts too much power and that they don’t have the historical knowledge base to interpret the original intent of constitution properly. Scalia thinks that this job of interpretation of important amendments would be better left to historians then to lawyers. He does not think that judges should be allowed to create laws because they don’t know how to interpret the original intent of the constitution. Justice Brennan believes that the interpretation of the constitution into common law is for a federal judge, obligatory. And that it is the job of the judges to look at the cases presented to them and use their best unbiased judgment to interpret what outcome would be best for the public good. Justice Brennan says himself that when the justices interpret the constitution they don’t speak for themselves, they speak for the public. Scalia and Brennan basically disagree on how the text should be read and about what should be considered legitimate interpretation. There

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

In the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the overriding law of the land. The Supreme Court can overrule the decisions made by the likes of a state or appeals court. The Constitution is clear in its attempts to unify the nation and strengthen the federal government, all while maintaining the freedoms of the states and the feeling of equality. Though the Constitution is written in a vague way, leaving it to be open for interpretation and allowing it to conform with the changes that time brings to society. But because of the uncertainty of the document, it has often been misinterpreted, or has caused a wide array of viewpoints of a certain issues. The most memorable example being that of the Civil War, but today it is even more prevalent when we try to relate modern day issues to the ambiguous instructions left to us by our forefathers.

Since this is an opinionated examination, I group myself as an Originalist. I trust that we ought to translate the Constitution indistinguishable today from when it was first composed. Originalism is championed for various principal reasons. To start with, it comports with the way of a constitution, which ties and restrains any one era from decision as indicated by the enthusiasm of the times. The Framers of the Constitution of 1787 recognized what they were about, shaping an edge of government for "ourselves and our Posterity." They didn't comprehend "We the general population" to be only a collection of people at any one point in time however a "people" as an affiliation, in reality various covering relationship, through the span of numerous

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

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.

The Courts should strictly interpret the U.S Constitution to prevent personal judgement and opinions from changing a fair decision. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the board of education of the West Virginia Legislature attempted to make the pledge of allegiance as a mandatory activities in public schools and refusal to participate will be dealt with in some way. Two Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not allowed to pledge to symbols according to their beliefs, were expelled for not saluting the flag. The decision of the Supreme Court was “constructed” based on the first amendment that states that promises no restriction on free exercise of religion and therefore the mandatory salute was banned. If the courts were

One of those was the case Benjamin Gitlow V. People of the State of New York, which happened on June 8, 1925. Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was a arrested for publishing and distributing copies of his article “left-wing manifesto”, which called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and the forceful overthrow of government, and was charged with criminal anarchy under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902. During his trial Gitlow argued that he was protected under the First amendment was he had the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press. On appeal the Supreme Court conveyed that the first amendment applied to New York through the Due Process Clause, ensures the rights and equality of all citizens, under the 14th amendment. Meaning New York had to follow Federal Government laws and not their own laws when dealing with Freedom Of Speech and Freedom of the Press which were ratified into the constitution in the year 1971. Although the Court decided Benjamin was still arrested because his speech was not protected under the First Amendment under the “clear and present danger test.” This case was very important because this was the year the first amendment was nationalized and showed how states had to follow federal government

Should the Constitution be interpreted as it was written in the 1700s, or should it be interpreted as a living document that changes as time goes on? This is a question that many people have different opinions about. Scalia and Souter both make very good points in their arguments, but when it comes down to it, there is one option that makes the most sense. The Constitution was written centuries ago, and has changed many times throughout the years, and so has America, this is why I believe that Souter’s living Constitution is the best way of interpretation.

The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." The court also stated that, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms," the court explained, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore, that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol when it cannot mandate the status or feeling the symbol purports to represent." The Supreme Court found that the state's first interest of preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was not made. The state had not shown that the flag was in danger of being stripped of its symbolic value, the Texas court also decided that flag's special status was not endangered by Johnson's actions.

The Supreme Court plays an important role in our government today. The courts perform several actions, such as making the final decision for many government policies. They interpret laws created by other government branches, and they make important policymaking decisions in order to please the public and make America a better place. The Supreme Court is pressured to make better decisions because they have an influence and a lot of power (. Even when they make mistakes, however, they do their best to make America a better place by using all of its powers given to them by the Constitution. These powers given to the Supreme Court allows them to perform several different actions without interference from other government branches. As a result,

And in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton stated that constitutional protections and limitations could "be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice," which must "guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours which sometimes disseminate among the people themselves." Following this approach, the Supreme Court has properly departed from the presumption of judicial restraint when governing majorities disadvantage historically vulnerable groups (such as African Americans, ethnic minorities, political dissidents, religious dissenters, women, and persons accused of crime); when they use their authority to stifle critics, entrench their own political power, or undermine the constitutional structure of checks and balances; and when they substantially restrict the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.

The U.S Constitution is revered for both its age and its brevity. The Constitution is a short and concise document has been able to stand the test of time and it has remained the 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 to interpret the Constitution differently since they have to figure out how to apply it to the twenty-first century.

The originalist believed that “to determine the meaning of a particular constitutional phrase, the Court should look to the intentions of the founders” (Sidlow & Henschen, 329). However, this approach was a little stiff because the drafters viewed the issues with the thinking of that time. The United States has experienced the Civil War, the World War and a plenty of movements that strove for various rights toward the African American, female, homosexual and some other groups. It has become one of the most open-minded countries in the world. So