Constitutional Interpretation Essay

Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf wrote the article “How not the Read the Constitution” in an attempt to investigate the intended interpretation of the Constitution. It was commonly agreed form both wings of the American political system the wording of the constitution was vague weather left that way purposely or not. What the writers aim to state is that the Constitution was mean to serve as a guide to feature generations, and was left vague in order to reflect the continually changing American society. Other groups to this day who oppose this view, in favor of constitutional interpretation as the framers would have seen it. In order to be more applicable to society today though, It seems more appropriate that the constitution reflects

“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and

‘Transformed beyond recognition from the vision of the Founding Fathers.’ Discuss this view of the modern US constitution.

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 US Constitution states “We The People of the United states in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for more common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The main purpose of the U.S Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American Citizens. This follows that every United States Citizens have equal rights. Belonging to a minority group because of culture, religion or race does not assert that one is unconstitutional. In times of war, evacuation of minority groups only in NOT constitutional; however, evacuation of ALL United

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

In the text Justice Marshall explains his idea on a larger scale the futility and absurdity in continuation legislative acts that contradict the constitution. Not only would this practice make the general purpose of a written

The Constitution is the framework of America’s government as well as the supreme law of the United States. It was written and signed during the Philadelphia Convention on September 17, 1787. In the Constitution there are various amendments that outline the powers and duties of the government, the state’s rights, and the rights of the people, and the process of amending and ratifying the document (Sidlow, Henschen 26). Even though there have been new laws issued by the government, they have failed to be successfully passed as an amendment. Proposing and ratifying an amendment is not an easy or short process. The difficulty of amending the Constitution is due to the various steps before the ratification of an amendment.

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 United States Constitution is the very foundation that the nation has been built upon, but its birth was not easy. The framers of the Constitution divided over many key issues relating to it and often argued at length over the creation, ratification, and implementation of this imperative document. Since the Constitution came into being it has been the epicenter of Civil Rights reforms, questions of state sovereignty versus national supremacy, and recently it has been looked to for questions about universal healthcare and what may or may not constitute a marriage. Currently the oldest “living” Constitution in the world; interpreting the United States

The US Constitution, written in Philadephia in 1787 by the Founding Fathers was the product of the revolutionary war of independence, with it’s foundations strongly influenced by the works of political theorists such as Montesquieu and Locke. The Founding Fathers favoured a government that prevented any individual or particular group becoming tyrannical. Furthermore, they strongly opposed the notion of excessive government power, seen as the potential threat to individual freedom, wanting to protect minorities as well as the population as a whole, from arbitrary or unjust rule. Consequently, the Founding Fathers outlined main provisions within the US constitution in order to avoid tyranny: the separation of powers, a federal structure of

There are two different views on constitutional interpretation. The first view believes that it is best to keep the original written text and have a strict interpretation of the text in court cases. The opposing view believes it is

     When the Federalist party was organized in 1791, those people who favored a strong central government and a loose constitutional interpretation coagulated and followed the ideals of men such as Alexander Hamilton. The first opposition political party in the United States was the Republican party, which held power, nationally, between 1801 and 1825. Those who were in favor of states rights and a strict construction of the constitution fell under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. These Jeffersonian republicans, also known as anti-federalists, believed in strict adherence to the writings of the constitution. They wanted state’s rights and individual rights, which they believed could only be granted under

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?

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.