What Is The Meaning Of The Word Change Over Time

This has meant that although the words of the Founding Fathers do appear to still be relevant and present in the constitution, these words are being altered and changed- losing their original meaning and not resembling what the founding fathers wanted them to at all.

The court observed that the ‘legal meaning’, i.e. meaning the legislature is taken to have intended, may not correspond to the literal or grammatical meaning. As four justices put

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

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

Non- orginalists, such as William Brennan, believe that the Framers of the Constitution did not want control over the intrepretations of law and the rights of government and the American citizens. Non-originalist believe to fully and appropriately serve the American people according to law, a Judge must take his or her fundamentals from the Constitution, but also be flexible to modern day circumstances. Brennan goes on to say “…the constitutional text over the years confirms any single poposition, it is that the demands of human diginity will never cease to evolve.” Brennan thinks that political power and judiciary action should be able to adapt to a different world from “the values of 1789” to present time enlightenment (Brennan). While challenging the originalists views, Brennan brings forth an example concerning the Eighth Amendment and capital punishment. The Eight Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, yet the death penalty is still legal in many parts of the United States. If an originalists can claim to follow the Constitution strictly and without new world interpretations, then surely death violates “a punishment must not be so severe as to be utterly and irreversibly degrading to the very essence of human dignity” (Brennan).

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.

Atop twenty-four Corinthian columns at One First Street in Washington, D.C., lie a promise to our nation, four words: “equal justice under law”. These words, abundant with virtuous intentions, are the parameters of jurisprudence that the Supreme Court must apply when considering its cases. A founding principle of this nation, seen in documents as early as the Declaration of Independence, and affirmed through the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments thereto, promotes the idea of equality in justice and blindness to the individuality of the litigant. This idea is central not only as a function

Scalia argues that the Constitution should not be interpreted too strictly or too leniently, but reasonably. Scalia argues that being a textualist is essentially interpreting the Constitution for what it says, not what they think it was trying to say. Scalia believes that interpreting the Constitution for what the framers meant it to say. However, he also believed that being a good textualist required not being too literal. If someone simply takes everything the Constitution says as gospel with no form of interpretation at all then it would constrict progress. The world today is extremely different compared to the world that the framers lived in when they wrote the Constitution. Which is why the sweet spot of textualism has to be found, not too literal and not too lenient either. Scalia also brings forth a counter to the argument against textualism, the one which he claims to be the most mindless, and that is that textualism is formalistic. Scalia says that of course it is formalistic because law revolves around formalism. Formalism is what makes a government a government of laws and not of men, says Scalia. Textualism is what Scalia based his interpretation of the Constitution and statutes on and this is quite evident in many of his famous opinions

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

Defining Change Change can be defined as an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another, the result of alteration or modification, to lay aside, abandon, or leave for another, become different in essence; to lose one's or its original nature, to make different; cause a transformation, or to make or become different in some particular way, without permanently losing one's or its former characteristics or essence. There are many different views as to the complexity of change. Some may believe change is an illusion and nothing ever really changes. However, the majority, such as the post structuralism theorists, believe that change is inevitable. Change can be viewed

After reviewing and researching the literature with respect to organizational changes, I have come to the conclusion that organizations have always changed. When everything in the world is changing, organization cannot remain islands. They must change to face new challenges. Bolman and Deal (2008) claim organizations have changed about as much as in past few decades as in the preceding century. Bolman and Deal (2008) claim means that the change organizations have experienced in the last decade are almost similar to those they experience in at the end of the twentieth century.

I do not think that the Supreme Court should continue to rely on the public opinion as a way of determining “the evolving standards of decency.” My reason for this is because the people are like children and the Supreme Court our parents. People look up to the Supreme Court for guidance, answers, and justice. The courts should be the one to set the better example. We don't believe murder is right so the courts should enforce death as a punishment because it’s hypocritical. If the court abolished the death penalty over time, as the generations changed people would think it was the right thing to do because the highest court felt so and they are suppose to help guide us in the right direction towards justice.

The aim of this report is to provide a critical analysis of the concept of change in the business industry. The concept of change can be tracked back to Lewin’s Model of Change therefore the intitial introduction of this report focuses on the relevance of the Model of Change and its importance to giving precedence to other relevant change management theories and how Kurt Lewin’s work on heavioral science and planned change during World War II gave rrise to prominence of experimental leadership and planned change processes which also in turn launched a new generation of research that lead to group dynamics and how change programs are implemented into an organisation (Burnes, 2004). This is important because today’s basic elements or factors

Burke (2014) stated that organizations change from day to day. The changes that take place in organizations can be intentional or unintentional. Generally, the changes that occur is accidental. It is important to have a broader and deeper knowledge of understanding organization change. Understanding what is currently happening as well as trends in which the organization is functioning can provide such awareness.