The Debate Over The Method Of Constitutional Interpretation

On September 17, 1787 framers in Philadelphia signed “The Constitution of the United States in which it was approved on June 21, 1788 by the ninth state. Once confirmed, along with the addition to the Bill of Rights it developed a mutual standard by which Americans determined the responsibilities and limits of their government. Looking to the Constitution to decide political discrepancies has helped to substitute and preserve a general agreement among people that are otherwise diverse. The Constitution, although two centuries of complications and trials of the American experiment in self-government, is a testament to the cleverness and anticipation of its framers.

After America shocked the world by defeating Great Britain in the War for Independence, the new nation needed a document that established their governments- state and national. After failed attempts with the Articles of Confederation, which gave the state governments too much power, the Constitution was eventually drafted. This contract established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for the citizens. The United States Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia, conducted by George Washington. Said authors of the Constitution intended this document to rule our nation for eternity, yet a widely debated topic in the political science world, is whether or not the Constitution is still relevant in today’s

The United States Constitution was signed in 1787, in hopes of creating a new legal system that would ensure basic human rights for all citizens. Often, the constitution evokes political discussion on whether or not there should be a constitutional convention. The article named “Re – examining the Constitution by Kenneth Jost (2012), provides the reader with an interesting analysis of the pros and cons of a constitutional convention (“Con – Con”). Citizens who oppose the Con – Con argue that changing the Constitution wouldn’t transition well because of the current political climate, and explain that it has worked fine over the years. On the other hand, citizens who are in favor of the Con – Con, state that the constitution is outdated, and suggest that reviewing it may be beneficial to better suit the citizen’s needs. A close comparison of both arguments reveals that people who support the constitutional convention have stronger reasons regarding the document and are more rational about the issues associated with it.

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.

Nearly the late year of 1787, the U.S. Constitution was established, stating the basal laws and fundamental principles that the United States would be governed by. Many philosophers and political thinkers furnished a great comprehension for the modern day structures that are very active today. Our Founding Fathers created a system which divides different acts of government into the legislature, executive, and judicial branches. Following in the form of the Separation of Powers, the checks and balances system ensures that political power isn’t contributing to any individual or group that enables them to gain an abundant amount of power. For the instance of this, “the Constitution provides a method for change, as the Founders created it this

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders believed it was necessary to hold a National Convention to revise it in order for it to become the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, two groups were created. The Anti-federalists who composed a series of essays one known as An Old Whig V (1787) suggests that an inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be more effective in clarifying the limits of the government, while others, the Federalists, opposed to it. To understand the effects of ratifying a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, both sides must be analyzed. This paper examines An Old Whig V’s arguments against the Federalist, mainly letters from Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to propose that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights allows citizens to verbalize their right of protection in regards to the occasion of being shown in the Constitution.

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It was recognized that each future generation would be facing new challenges that would have never occurred to the older ones, so it had the flexibility available by both interpretation and revisement to allow the newer generation to use the document as it was intended. As society and government grows, additions must be made to the Constitution to keep with the times. The Constitution is also governed by the thoughts of society at that time, seen in the implementation of the 18th amendment because of the urgings of religious and Women’s Suffrage movements. As it is also seen when the government grows weary of one president in office too long, seen in the creation of the 22nd amendment.

Have you ever wonder the process that the Founding Fathers of America had to go through to create our system of government? One of the vital pieces to establishing this government was the famous document known as the Constitution. The Constitution was a highly argued document, because many people were concerned about if it would protect the newly-separated country of america from the tyranny that they had faced with their previous king. The Constitution ended up being the people's’ savior after the delegates signed it in September 1787, and protected them from tyranny in their country even better than before. All and all, the Constitution guarded the United States against tyranny creating a system

We of this country want only the best for our budding nation, do we not? We all want our country to grow strong, to prove that it will be strong, not only in spite of its newness but because of it. We are an innovation, an ingot in the forge—we are ushering in the dawn of an era with little more than philosophical ideals to guide us, and it is inevitable that we stumble as we blaze our trail through history. Yet every mistake comes with lessons learnt, so that each step is better-grounded than the last. Such is the matter of our Articles of Confederation and the proposed Constitution. The Articles did well to solidify our nation as an independent and sovereign entity, but managed little more than that. Our states squabble amongst themselves,

The U.S Constitution was written by James Madison and was ratified on July 21, 1788. Ever since people had trouble determining how it should be interpreted. When judges interpret the constitution, they are interpreting new facts to an established law that has been given meaning and has a historical background. Many people argue that it should be read how it was written who are known as Originalists. Then there are people who believe that the Constitution evolves as society does and they are known as Living Constitutionalists. Also, some feel that the goal is not do determine whether the constitution should be determined originally or as a living document, but to give meaning on the basis of facts. In my paper I will discuss arguments on how the Constitution should be read, whether it be from the Originalists or the Living Constitutionalist’s point of view, and why Living Constitutionalism is better. As society evolves, there are new and more difficult problems that occur, and they cannot be solved by reading the exact text of the Constitution which makes Living Constitutionalism better.

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions

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.