Interpreting the Constitution

Interpreting the Constitution as you see it, is very difficult because of the fact is when time changes, people change. What I mean by this statement is that different generations have different interpretations of what people believe that the Constitution says that they can do. Which leads to people becoming a textualism which means that the judges of the Supreme Court try to decide that they can make news laws, even though their job is just to interpret the laws. They figure since the Constitution was written in 1788, that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, you have people that believe that you should interpret the laws that come in with using the Constitution the same way judges did way back then. An example of a person that is a textualism would be Supreme Court Antonin Scalia and a person that is a originalist is Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. In this paper, I am comparing and contrast, both of these judges to determine which person and their argument is right.

The first article that I am contrasting is called: A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law by Antonin Scalin. In this article, Scalia defines and defends the concept of texualism, or the belief that a text “should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.” Scalia insists that “words do have a limited range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permissible.” Scalia says that the purpose of the Constitution “is to prevent change – to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away.” Further in the article, Scalia talks about what it means to be a...

... middle of paper ...

...to which Constant referred. Breyer explained that things can be defined in themes so he said that his theme is “active liberty” – which resonates throughout the Constitution. While on the other hand Justice Antonin Scalia believes that a text should be construed strictly, and it should be not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means. Scalia also stated that if that logic fails to produce what in the view of the current Supreme Court is the desirable result for the case at hand, then, like good common law judges, the court will distinguish its precedents, or narrow them, or if all else fails overrule them, in order that the Constitution might mean.

This is why I decided that Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer is right about his interpretation of the Constitution instead of Supreme Court Judge Anton Scalia.