Originalism was Justice Antonin Scalia’s main mode of constitutional interpretation. He believed that our constitution is dead, not living and evolving, as some believe. Scalia firmly believed that the Constitution should be interpreted in the same manner in which it was reasonably understood to mean when it was adopted. The late Supreme Court Justice Scalia continued to hold the belief that the meaning of the Constitution should not change from its original meaning through all of his political decisions. Scalia was very adamant that the interpretation was to be taken from the original meaning that the general public understood it to signify when it was adopted, regardless of any other underlying meanings that the framers may have wanted or intended.
I particularly like Justice Scalia’s own explanation of his theory of interpreting the Constitution, in which he said:
The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated… If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they
…show more content…
Moreover, Scalia maintained a consistent interpretation of the Constitution, making him a very predictable Supreme Court Justice. He admitted that originalism is not a perfect mode of interpretation, but that compared to other modes it was the best and most consistent. Scalia gained respect from many people, even those who did not agree with his conclusions, because of his consistency. Although Scalia has died and therefore no longer on the Supreme Court, I am sure that, his words and professed mode of constitutional interpretation will continue to make an impact on the Court’s decisions for years to
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.
For example document a states, “sink the state government.” The letter from Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger mainly argues that the constitution is the best, and what it says should be done. Jefferson advocated for state’s right over national institution. He wanted more power to be given to the states. This document accurately supporters that Jefferson stood for his Democratic Republic's politics, they believed that the Constitution should be taken literally. Another example is from document d which states, “where is it written in the Constitution.” This shows Madison taking the Constitution strictly. This document talked about where in the constitution is stated that children can be taken away from their parents. He is taking the Constitution strictly, wanting to see where exactly does it give the power to take children away from parents. In this example Madison did not accurately characterize his party, because federalists believed in taking the Constitution lightly, but here Madison was taking the Constitution literally. Another example is from Jefferson writing a letter to Samuel Kercheval, “not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions”. In this example Jefferson can be seen against the Constitution. His political party believed that the Constitution should be taken literally, but in
“The principle of stare decisis does not demand that we must follow precedents, which shipwreck justice.”
...ice it when the said sources contain no clear information regarding the topic at hand. In situations like these, the Supreme Court is essentially free to do whatever it wishes, and often exercises judicial activism. Thus, there is a disconnect that exists between the theoretical practice of judicial review, which is reasonable and justifiable, and the actual practice of judicial review that is often used in the Supreme Court, which may potentially allow the Judiciary to surpass the powers granted to it in the Constitution and as stated by Hamilton in Federalist 78. There are two main sides to the debate about how Justices should approach judicial review: the strict constructionists, who advocate for strict adherence to the text of the Constitution when deciding a case, and the loose constructionists, who advocate for more freedom for the judges when deciding a case.
Did the Founding Fathers actually create the constitution to help us? Alternatively, did they create the constitution just to protect their beliefs and so on? The Founding Fathers was an elite group that sought to create a constitution for their own interests. Several members apart from this strategic group agreed to create the constitution only for their selfish ambitions. The Founding Fathers created the constitution rather than amend the Articles of Confederation. Just because some decline the ideas of others apart from the group, which created a break in the group. As a result, members of the elite group saw this as a way of starting over to fresh new start. Therefore, the person who always seemed to make everything a problem in this elite
In one case talked about in the textbook, which was Roe v Wade, the outcome ruled that Texas’s view that abortion was a criminal act was unconstitutional. The majority of justices believed that right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion and this wasn’t found in written words in the constitution. The outcome of this decision was influenced from the other Supreme Court case of Griswold v Connecticut. Another important case we discussed in class was Brown v Board of Education and this was an example of judicial activism. This is an example of that because the ruling in the Plessy v Ferguson case that facilities are in fact “separate but equal” was over turned in the Brown v Board of Education case defying the stare decisis (textbook) of letting the ruling stand and incorporating the ruling in this case. People who oppose these rulings back their claim by stating that the judges took their own beliefs into consideration and ignored the rule of law. Therefore, they are undermining democracy and not strictly following the text of the constitutions. More importantly many who oppose this bring up the point that the justices are those who are suppose to strictly follow the text of the constitution and not base decisions on their perspective on the
Justice John Paul Stevens initially took a moderate stance on abortion rights prior to and immediately after joining the Supreme Court. When President Gerald Ford nominated then-Judge Stevens, abortion rights were not as politically controversial as they are today. In a sense, Justice Stevens did not have to take a strong stance on abortion in order to make it onto the Supreme Court. As his time on the Supreme Court went on, Justice Stevens developed a more pro-choice stance in deciding abortion rights cases. After the Reagan-era rise of conservative Republicans, evangelical abortion advocates emerged to the forefront of American politics and media. Justice Stevens always recognized the right to choose established in Roe v. Wade, but may not have felt the strong need to preserve and protect it early in his career. As the years went on, Justice Stevens’ abortion jurisprudence developed into a more pro-choice friendly jurisprudence than that which he initially espoused, likely due to the increased controversial nature of the abortion debate. Justice Stevens felt the need to protect and preserve the stare decisis first established in Roe. In some of the later cases, Justice Stevens developed a strategy to approaching abortion cases and realized that some compromise was required in order to preserve the right to choose. In the early 1990s, Stevens acted as almost a mediator between the liberal and conservative Justices. Stevens did what he could to preserve the fundamental rights from Roe.
...ntegrity of the American government and follows the Constitution which is what our nation is structured after. Had these Justices not made such remarkable decisions many others would suffer. It would be difficult to fathom a nation where women could not vote, races lived separately and immigrants were unable to create a life of their own. The fact that the Supreme Court made radical movements to spread equality throughout the nation and was able to excel and continue to institute this idea is what separates America from the rest of the world.
The Constitution was the first stepping stone in the national sovereignty of the United States. It is the supreme law that has been valued and upheld since its ratification in 1787. It holds the rights and freedoms of all Americans and gives structure to the government. To uphold this structure, the judiciary branch was established, alongside the legislative and executive, by the Constitution. However, the judicial branch did not always have the power and influence it does today. Because of the 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, the Supreme Court eventually gained the power and ability to become coequal to the legislative and executive branches. John Marshall’s establishment of Judicial Review in the Supreme Court and his strong federalists
http://www.guntruths.com/guest% 20correspondent/american_citizens_have_a_right.htm. 28 July 1999. Schultz, Daniel J. "It's Hard to Argue With the Founders".
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently...
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