The Free Range Of Interpretation Of The Constitution

The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard was published in 1913. Beard argues that the founding fathers prepared the constitution of the United States to protect their personal financial interests. He also argues that the constitution was written by an “elite” who were only concerned about protecting what they owned and their status. In his interpretation he states, “ The Constitution was not created by the “whole people” as the jurists have said; neither was it created by “the states” as southern nullifiers long contended; but it was the work of a consolidated group whose interests knew no state boundaries and were truly national in their scope.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

Americans elect two-thirds of the government, both the president and congress. As for the supreme court justices, the president nominates someone and congress reviews them. This is how the system should stay, for the American public would not choose the best people if justices had to run and be elected.

Today, there is confusion about how to interpret the Second Amendment, likely because circumstances of our country have changed over

Gun control is one of the most debated about topic today in America; between news outlet, the public, and politicians. As some politicians look to resolve the gun control issues, with banning them, imposing more restriction to sellers, buyers and owner; some people and politicians consider the second amendment to be relic and should be removed from the constitution. History has shown us time and time again even through all the violence and chaos in the world and America, that there is a reason for the creation of the second amendment. From history of America independence in 1776 to the ratification of the bill of right in 1791 the 2nd amendment still remains relevant form it creation, to modern times, and the protection of America’s future; for the freedom of its inhabitants and citizens. The once influential 20th century thinker George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Looking back into ancient history, the history of second amendment, recent and current history we can find clues that will support the relevance of the 2nd amendment. We will also define the second amendment and try to find solutions to our current problems from what our forefathers had say.

The U.S constitution is in place to protect citizens rights from the government. It plays as a check in balance in powers amongst the most powerful. But why is that even with the constitution in place to protect us, we find certain discrepancies which result in Supreme Court cases or Landmark cases. One of the most disputable amendments in our constituting governmental platform is, to much surprise, the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, its due to its broadness in explanation. According to constitutioncenter, the 2nd amendment Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791, and its states as followed, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As you can see, its brief in what its prerogative is, but not specific on situational based questions. We as humans want to know the “what ifs” in any situation especially when something isn’t addressed. This results in cases that end up in the Supreme court. One of the most notable cases regarding the 2nd amendment, was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Even though in 1787 all the delegates at the constitutional convention where thought of as federalists, two political groups where founded with opposite views of the constitution right after john Adams was administrated in 1800. The democratic republicans changed their views on the constitution when they where elected into office, they also kept Hamilton’s financial plan. Many federalists in the Hartford convection had a strict view when they looked at objectives of the war of 1812. During 1801 – 1816 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had a strict and loose view of the constitution while they where president. The federalists also viewed the constitution this way while they conquered over the federal government.

At the time of the Bill of Rights’ ratification, the United States had only just broken free of the Articles of Confederacy, a document intended to create a loose union with the individual states holding all the power. In order to garner more support for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment was added in to protect the states’ rights to their own armed forces—a right which is of little importance in the 21st century. Because of the strength of these arguments, pro-gun control advocates point to the historical context in which the 2nd Amendment was written in order to justify stricter laws.

While presented through an amendment in the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms has been and continues to be a subject of controversy often due to the advancement of firearms over time, and overall vagueness of the Second Amendment. Examples of vagueness discrepancies are often found in interpreting the concept of what it entails when supporting a “well-regulated militia.” The development of firearms has also proven to be a major subject of debate as modern day weapons are significantly more advanced than what existed during the creation of the Second Amendment. Lastly, the argument of which citizens the Second Amendment should protect or not protect based on their criminal background or other factors has been an ongoing debate. These subjects do not cover all aspects of debate surrounding the Second Amendment, but have been tried in many Supreme Court cases and are subjects of controversy in modern politics.

After the ratification of the second Amendment many Americans have been arguing over the meaning and the interpretation of the amendment. Some have argued that the meaning of “A well-regulated Militia” clause means the right to bear arms for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally (Brooks, 2013). On the contrary, others believe that the amendment gives every citizen of America the right to own firearms, free of federal regulation, to protect themselves in the face of danger (Brooks, 2013).

     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

The Constitution of the United States of America is the basis to our country, and the supreme law of the land. The Constitution defines the national frame for our country, and it divides power in our country into three branches known as the legislative, judicial, and executive. The branches in our government have a series of checks and balances to ensure that power is evenly distributed, and nobody can be in complete control of our nation’s decisions. Various amendments have been made to the Constitution, which changed the country we live in forever, and has had a lasting impact on American citizens. The Constitution of the United States of America has been changed many times during the course of our country, and

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.

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.