Compare And Contrast Constitutionalism And Originalism

The United States Supreme Court is composed of nine justices. The Supreme Court is primarily responsible for interpreting the text of the Constitution and defining what rights it creates, as well as the procedural requirements arising from it. Under the U.S. Constitution, all other laws must not violate rights deemed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is responsible for deciding whether federal or state laws involved in a case violate the Constitution. Here are two conflicting interpretational approaches used by Supreme Court Justices in these determinations.

The originalism theory interprets legal texts, including the Constitution. The constitutional is interpreted by its original public meaning, according to originalists. A dictionary,

Even without the official approval of a constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, contemporary constitutionalists hold that the meaning of the constitutional language evolves through time as social views change. Since the general public supported racial segregation from 1877 to 1954, according to living constitutionalists, it was constitutional. It didn't become unconstitutional until the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which they feel enhanced and modified the Constitution. Contrarily, originalists believe that the Fourteenth Amendment has always prohibited racial segregation, from its adoption in 1868 through the incorrect ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the judgment in Brown in 1954, and up to the present. Racial apartheid, according to contemporary constitutionalists, might revert to being constitutional if racial sentiments in society change. Originalists disagree and believe that racial discrimination will always be unlawful unless the Fourteenth Amendment is

When first drafted, this clause's language was interpreted to forbid the government from founding a national church that American individuals would have to pay taxes to maintain. The Establishment Clause was not first considered to prohibit other types of government support for religion when it was first included in the text of the Constitution. The Establishment of Religion Clause, however, was interpreted by the Court in cases from the second half of the 20th century as forbidding a public school teacher from beginning the day's lessons with a Bible reading or prayer. The Court severely restricted the Establishment Clause in a 20th-century ruling, even though public schools are supported by government funds, which significantly limits the government's authority to subsidize religious