Essay On Constitutional Constructionism

549 Words2 Pages

The Constitution is the skeleton of the United States. Nothing the United States does goes against what our leaders have interpreted The constitution to stand for, but interpretation is subjective. Without a standard lens to view this historical and legal document with, it is virtually worthless. The three primary viewpoints each have appealing characteristics to them. I think a mix between all three interpretations is the most sensible way to look at The Constitution, but Constructionism should be the predominant perspective on The Constitution. In interpreting the Constitution, Americans should consider the frame of society, but view The Constitution as a document that means what the founding fathers intended for it to be, and when all else fails, interpret the language exactly as it is written.
This disagreement travels back to the roots of The constitution, and begs the question: What is the purpose of The Constitution. This is the question that allows more than one interpretation to even exist because different people have different responses. I believe that the purpose of The Constitution was to establish a set of rules which the U.S. could govern its people by creating the …show more content…

We’ve undergone extreme changes like our perspective on enslavement and African American rights, and gay rights. It would be foolish to say because the founding fathers held slaves, we too should have slaves because they made it legal in their time. Society bequeaths an eternally shifting ball of values that is composed of the morals of every member of that society. This makes it impossible to point to one set of values or morals that can be said to accurately represent the values of the population. Moreover, this viewpoint would allow people in positions of power like Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to promote their own agendas under the cloak of “the values of society” because of a “Living Constitution’s

Open Document