Should federal judges seek to uphold the “original intent” of the founding fathers in making their decisions? I. Introduction A. There has been much controversy on whether judges should rule with an originalist or non-originalist (living document) ideology 1) This controversy has been around for generations but has risen in popularity when judges like Antonin Scalia have shown to have a strong position to one of the sides and insist that the other one is wrong 2) Antonin Scalia, Roe v Wade, originalism, living document, etc. B. This controversy matters because depending on the ideology that is determined as better will determine how judges will rule in court cases like Roe v Wade C. Although the original constitution was designed to endure and last, ruling with the “original intent” would not be ideal due …show more content…
Original intent too hard to identify – 2 A. Not only did the framers have different mindsets than each other, but their mindsets were much different than ours today. To be more specific, justices have more historic information that can help them better interpret the constitutions meaning than the framers B. Framers’ had a very different mindset when creating the Constitution than people do today (our country’s situation has changed) 1) Wars have happened since the Constitution was ratified 2) Our country is in both a different political and financial situation than the framers were 3) New alliances, etc. (NAFTA, 1994 | NATO, 1949) C. We know so much more about the world than the framers did because we live more than 200 years after them, so naturally we are the better option for interpreting the Constitution, especially when it comes to supreme court justices. We have had 2 world wars since all of the framers have died, and we need to assume that the Constitution would have been different had the framers been alive for all of these events, and its our job to not necessarily update the constitution, but keep an updated interpretation of
The U.S government has operated for about 200 years on the basis of Constitution written in 1787 and since then, there have been several debates as to whether the framing of this document was an elitist or democratic process. The framers, collectively were an elite, but the reason for why they wrote the Constitution is not fully known. John P. Roche suggests the Constitution was written upon the idea to establish an effective and controlled national government that would overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and not so much to limit the power of popular majorities and protect their own property interests.
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...
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.
All of the framer of the U.S. Constitution had one thing in common, they all felt that the government didn't have enough power. At the same time they didn't want to give the government to much power. They all knew if there was power to be held someone was going to hold it and over use it The framers didn't want to create a system like Britain or England.
Through the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and thought have been implemented up until this point. However this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government more so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the duty to oversee the government, yet so many times they are disinterested and only seem to have an opinion when the government’s implications affect them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses question when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.
...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.
I think that it is important to remember that the framers were fairly new at creating a government unlike any other government in the world and their main concern was freedom from government control. It appears that their biggest mistake was not applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government. It also becomes problematic in that two men, having different political beliefs and opinions, can interpret the same law in very different ways. Thus, the Supreme Court, established in 1789, which consists of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. In other words, when there is disagreement concerning constitutional law, the Supreme Court settles it. The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in itself has become conflictual due to affiliations which could certainly sway decisions in favor of one particular political
Most of the American people know about the Bill of Rights, but don 't know much else about our constitution. One of the most important parts of the constitution are the rules and principles that give government its power, if these were not already embedded in there would be mass confusion on who could do what and how much power a single branch held. Luckily the United States constitution, which is 228 years old, still provides a framework for legitimate government in the U.S.. The constitution can change with the times because of the six broad principles it is based on.
... document and not the will of those in powers is tremendous. Except for the 17 of the 27 amendments that make part of the United States of America constitution, the constitution has remained largely the same. What has changed, and continues to change, is the interpretation of some parts that have expanded to include contexts that were not envisioned by our founding fathers. It is truly remarkable that the Constitution has sustained many powerful historical events over time and today remains pretty much intact.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
allows the Constitution to stay relevant throughout changing times, so it doesn't need to be
The U.S. Constitution was setup to be a living Constitution, which means that the Constitution changes,
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,
The controversial topic of abortion has been around for many centuries. However, the debate between pro life and pro choice really began after the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. Jane Roe was an unmarried woman who wanted to end her pregnancy safely and legally. Previously to this time abortions were deemed unethical and illegal, only to be performed if the mother-to-be’s life was at risk or if she had been raped. The Supreme Court looked at plenty of cases and drew on decades worth of case law about, not only abortion, but fundamental human rights as well. Times were changing drastically, and there was a nationwide push to get rid of laws that had been in place since before the turn of the century. The Supreme Court finally reached a decision, recognizing “that a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her pregnancy deserves