Originalist

877 Words4 Pages
Everyone in America likes the constitution but it’s vague. The Supreme Court has their way of interpreting the constitution. The judicial interpretation of the constitution consists of five different interpretations. The Judicial Branch job is to uphold the constitution however; their view about the constitution is different in interpreting what it says or doesn’t say. The Supreme Court is presented with cases that they have to decide if it has constitutional validity, this task is known as judicial review. They make this decisions based on their own judicial interpretation theory. The five judicial interpretation theories are Natural Law theory, Pragmatist, Internationalist and Originalist that includes textualist and intentionalist. At of all these five theories the best one is the Originalist, textualist theory. Why make the constitution vague if it can be simplified into the real words the founders said? We can narrow the constitution interpretation into one theory and it would be beneficial to all. The Originalist’s theory represent What Would the Founding Fathers Say? The Founding Fathers created the constitution for a reason, being that it would presumably be the law of the land and it has. The constitution is known as “the supreme law of the land” and for that reason it should be followed as it is written, it includes everything that the Founding Fathers created to help run a country. The original intent of the Founding Fathers is meant to be kept, who are we to change their views on things? When they wrote it out for us, what they wrote is what we should follow. We cannot be rule by the passions of our time and not consider the constitution and the past. We are bound to the constitution as it serves as a mean to hel... ... middle of paper ... ... private property can only be taking for public use. What is in the constitution cannot be change or interpreted differently because you than get the government changing the constitution to fit its benefits. Here Originalist, textualist should have been use to interpret the constituion . The Supreme Court decided on a case that should have been in favor of Kelo because the constitution specifically states what to do in situations like that. Overall Originalist is the Judicial Interpretations that connects us with what the Founder wanted us to get from the constitution. In these written words are the guide and knowledge they left us to guide this nation. Without the constitution we would have fallen a long time ago. The interpretation of the constitution is Originalist, it has everything we need to know about our law, a law that has the answers in black ink letters.
Open Document