More handpicked essays just for you.
Scope and importance of constitutional interpretation
Comparison criteria for constitution comparison
The us constitution ambiguity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In my opinion to the question. That is if I think that the framers intended for a strict or loose interpretation of the Constitution. To first answer this question, we need to define what a strict and loose interpretation means. Without that, we would have little understanding of what the question is asking. Strict interpretation means that the Constitution must explicitly grant a power or privilege in order for the action to be legal. Loose interpretation means that government can act relatively freely as long as the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit an action. 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
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...
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
Typically the most basic civil liberties are found in a country’s bill of rights and then that country passes amendments as needed in order to grow the peoples’ civil liberties, or shrink them if need be. Now, in the case of the United States the people are not “granted“ civil liberties by the...
A great deal of bills have been written and passed as legislation under the pretense that they would better outline the citizen’ rights and ensure their freedoms. Yet occasionally these laws are created with disregard to what is stated in our Constitution. At times they distort and twist the original meaning of the work, counter acting the purpose of creating the Amendments. The intention of Amendments was to be an outline of the rights of the people. They were to ensure that there would not be a repeat of what the framers had experienced when they set out on their mission to draft a document that would govern our country for years to come. Little by little our elected officials have been discounting our Constitution. There are many resulting repercussions; the most dear to everyone being the individuals rights. The end result of these interpretations being that our people are hurt, as we are slowly being stripped of our rights as U.S. citizens.
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 ...
...framers wrote the Constitution to benefit themselves, it is irrelevant because it hasn't failed yet, and it has kept this country together for a long time and will continue to do so. However, the Constitution works very slowly and inefficiently at the cost of the American people. However, the fact that our government moves slowly is only a minor problem in the grand scheme of the world.
The debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 revealed bitter controversies on a number of issues that had been developing since the penning of the Constitution. The writers of the document knew that over time the needs of the nation and its people would change, and therefore provided for its amendment. But by not expressly delegating powers to specific organizations, whether the federal government, state governments, or the people themselves, they inadvertently created a major problem in the years to follow: Constitutional interpretation.Shortly after the Constitution's ratification, two distinct camps formed, each believing in opposite manners of interpretation. One group, the Federalists, led by the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, thought that the Constitution should be interpreted very loosely. He claimed that the Constitution contained powers other than those delegated or enumerated. These unspecified powers were implied powers.
The Constitution was created by Federalists with the intent to broaden the power of the federal
The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was proposed to Congress in 1789 by James Madison in response to the Anti- Federalist movement that lobbied for an extended amount of rights that would further safeguard liberty. The 4th amendment in particular was drafted to acknowledge the abuse of the writ of assistance, a “search warrant” issued by the British government to search boats that were thought to contain smuggled material in Colonial America. The 4th amendment can be broken down into 3 parts: what activities are considered to be a “search” or a “seizure”; what is a probable cause for a “search” and “seizure” and finally, how violations should be dealt with. The evolution of the 4th amendment is long and tumultuous, starting from what it meant at time of drafting, to the controversy over different interpretations in modern times. Through all the controversies and the debate over the meaning of the 4th amendment, the essence is always the same: to protect man’s liberty.
There are two major ways that the Constitution is interpreted. One of which is called the “Strict Constitution” of national law, an example of this would be the “Dred Scott decision. The other way is the federalist position, where the Constitution grants broad power to the federal government. Two great examples of this type of interpretation were Chief Justices John Marshall and Earl Warren.
This is a very telling interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it relates to the right to privacy afforded in the Constitution.
In Halley’s Comet by Stanly Kunitz a teaching is telling her first graders about Halley’s Comet. She tells them that if it hit earth there would be no school the next day. The children fill in the gaps and realize that there would not be any school because the world would end. One of her students is very concerned about this and that night while his family is asleep he creeps up to the roof. On the roof he sits and waits while looking at the sky. He is waiting for the world to end. Being a young child he does not totally understand everything that his teacher told him and he truly believes that the world is going to end that night. This is one example of the way that children interpret things inaccurately. When I was little, like many other children, I interpreted numerous things very wrong. As a kid my family and I always stayed up to watch American Idol. Back then it was really popular and we all liked seeing people who sounded terrible and the select few that actually sounded decent. Well one day when I was five I can remember that I was in the car with my family and we were driving home from something. My mom and step dad were singing to a song, and I remember thinking that they should go on American Idol, because surely they would win. Thinking back on it now, I laugh because I now know that I do not come from a family of vocally talented people. Every year when we sing Happy Birthday I have to restrain from covering my ears because we are so tone deaf. I had this misunderstanding, like the child in Halley’s Comet by Stanly Kunitz, when I was little because I was proud and curious, but now I can see that it was just silly.
The Founding Fathers limit the power of government in the Constitution utilizing many different tactics, many more than even the aforementioned. Their main intent was to make the nation less democratic and to keep the government small. The Constitution has accomplished the Founding Fathers' goal until now, and will hopefully continue doing so in the future.
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
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there