Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model

1277 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: interpreting the constitution

Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model The question of Constitutional interpretation still has yet to be resolved. Should only the explicit commands of our nation's Founding Fathers be referenced in courts of law, or can it be justified that an outside body should extrapolate from the specific text of the Constitution to define and defend additional fundamental rights? Further, if this body, namely the Supreme Court, bases its decisions of constitutional relevance not wholly on exact interpretation, then regardless of reason, are they wholly illegitimate? The non-interpretive model allows the Court to interpret beyond the exact wording of the Constitution to define and protect the values of a society. The question of how the non-interpretative model can be justified must be answered. Despite much remaining confusion between the two models, it is clear that history has chosen the non-interpretative model without which many of the defining points in our nation's history would be unjustified. The overwhelming strength of the non-interpretive model is that it has allowed for many fundamental decisions that have served to protect the natural rights of the members of this society. If on the other hand the interpretive model is to be accepted, a significant number of decisions must be revoked. Briefly, the majority of the due process clause is no longer justified. Fair criminal and civil procedures must be dismantled since they have no specific textual reference in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, religion, and property rights are all called in question. Also affected is the legitimacy of franchise and legislative apportionment bodies of doctrine. The equal protection clause of the Constitution whe... ... middle of paper ... ...ral and political notions. While this tendency of the Court is deplorable, the truth is inescapable that the cases allowing for many of our most basic rights cannot be justified simply by reference to the Constitution. Hence, the Court has invoked the generality of the Constitution to define and defend vested rights and general principles of democratic society. To conclude, without the ability to move beyond the explicit text of the Constitution, a great number of crucial decisions in U.S. history must be overturned. The simple fact is that the interpretive model cannot allow for the justification of many of our most sacred rights. While criticisms as to the justification of the power of the Court to discern the values of contemporary society are legitimate, history as well as the citizens of this society have long declared the non-interpretive model superior.

Show More
Related

  • Cole V Whitfield Originalism Analysis

    577 Words  | 2 Pages

    Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...

    Read More

  • Does Congress Have Too Much Power Over Commerce?

    2342 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Constitution of the United States explicates the enumerated powers that the people have granted to their public administration. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution would mean denying the government the powers granted to them to keep order, equality, and fairness. An expanded interpretation would “extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, and we might question the application of the term…” (244). It is the government’s responsibility to exercise powers that cannot be exercised by its governed people. There are no guidelines in the Constitution’s composition that discloses how to interpret the language; therefore, it is in the hands of three federal branches of government to decipher the Constitutions meaning.

    Read More

  • Marbury v. Madison: Analyzing the Implications of Judicial Review

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.

    Read More

  • Terminiello v. Chicago

    573 Words  | 2 Pages

    1. Does the Supreme Court have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of a case, that is brought up for review as it is presented at its face value, or should it consider the ultimate impact that it could have ...

    Read More

  • Ap World History Dbq Analysis

    397 Words  | 1 Pages

    Although most call the war the American ‘Revolution’, America’s founding documents, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are similar to important British archives, such as the English Bill of Rights and the Spirit of the Laws, as evidenced by the existence of the same three branches of power and rights. In the Constitution, written for and by the people in 1789, the people describe America’s three branches of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and who should hold it in each. According to the Constitution, the “legislative” power should be “vested in congress,” the “executive” branch should be “vested in a President,” and the “judicial” power should be “vested in one supreme court” (Document C). As a result of the American

    Read More

  • Essay On The Tenth Amendment

    1240 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though last in the Bill of Rights, it is one of the most powerful and ever changing in interpretation over the course of America’s history. Some historical events that altered its meaning include the Civil War, The Civil Right’s Movement, and even modern event’s like the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In this paper I will discuss how the Tenth amendment has a large effect in both America’s history, but also how it is now portrayed America’s present.

    Read More

  • The Formative Years of The Louisiana Purchase

    954 Words  | 2 Pages

    There are two methods one can use when interpreting the Constitution. The first method includes not doing something unless the Constitution says that one can (i.e. unless the Constitution says one can do something, then one cannot). The other is where one can go ahead and do something if the Constitution doesn’t say one can’...

    Read More

  • Justice Chase's Argumentative Analysis

    1909 Words  | 4 Pages

    Justice Iredell, on the other hand, believed that courts couldn’t ignore or strike down statutes based solely on “social compact” or natural law. He said, “The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the Legislature had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice.” (56). He asserted the ability of the Supreme Court to review legislative acts, but on the basis of something more than the principles of “natural justice.” According to Iredell’s view, any act of the legislature that violates the constitution is

    Read More

  • Should The Judiciary Have Too Much Power Essay

    594 Words  | 2 Pages

    These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning the Supreme Court's power. This is an important debate for America since the Supreme Court can alter the principles that by which we live by. The two positions argue whether or not the judiciary has too much power. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that the judiciary has little power to implement their decisions. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that despite this point, they still practice judicial review. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that the judiciary has too much power is the strongest position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that

    Read More

  • The Court Case of Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review

    866 Words  | 2 Pages

    The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

    Read More

  • The Bill of Rights

    1353 Words  | 3 Pages

    We live in the 21st century, where most Americans mind their own business but take for granted our God given rights. Not only God given rights but also those established by our founding forefathers. This paper will illustrate and depict the importance of the original problems faced when adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It will discuss the importance of the first amendment, the due process of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 8th amendments. Last but not least the importance of what is known as the “second Bill of Rights” (14th amendment).

    Read More

  • Graphic Adaptation By Jonathan Hennessey And Aaron Mcconnell's Comparison

    943 Words  | 2 Pages

    Constitutional interpretation is the principle job of the Judicial branch, and citizens have a variety of earnest beliefs based off of the document as well. There were several incidents where Hennessey’s own opinions were present in his writing. While discussing the Second Amendment, he states, “ So, if “people” have the right to bear arms, government has the power to impose fair qualifications on that right” (p.95). I don’t have to disagree with this assertion to know that readers deserve to learn from unbiased materials. This is a fierce issue in our government, and many people contend that Second Amendment rights are absolute and should not be infringed upon. Other times, Hennessy presents both sides of an issue like whether the Constitution is a “living document” that changes as time passes, or what Textualists believe, which is that the constitution should be accepted exactly as it is written. The value of reading the

    Read More

  • Strict And Loose Interpretation

    263 Words  | 1 Pages

    The problem with a loose interpretation is that it doesn't provide any safeguards against government intrusion on our liberty. What limits would there be? Our

    Read More

  • Judicial Review

    689 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is important to understand the classic debate of Yates v. Hamilton in order to comprehend the context of judicial review in American democracy. Robert Yates was an anti-federalist and judge of the New York Supreme Court who advocated that judicial review was not consistent with the spirit of democratic government. He refused to allow the judicial branch the last word over constitutional interpretation. In his paper, Brutus #11, he contended that the power of the judicial branch would be superior to that of the legislature is the Supreme Court acted as final arbiter of the constitution’s meaning, thus “this power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. — The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine” (Yates). Yates, above all, believed that the constitution is the mediator between the public and their elected officials. On the other hand, federalist Alexander Hamilton defended the legitimacy of judicial review as the “least dangerous branch” of government. He explained the legitimate status of the courts through the system of checks and balances. Ham...

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Judicial Activism

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.

    Read More

More about Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model

Open Document