ipl-logo

Justice Scalia Constitution

715 Words3 Pages

Seminar 1DB# 2 Q. 1 Interpretation of the Constitution In his speech, Justice Scalia noted that the interpretation of the Constitution depends on when it was interpreted. He also stated that the interpretation should be “reasonable.” Justice Scalia is said to be an Originalist. He explicated the originalist view comparing with the living document view. Originalist’s View In his view, as an originalist, Justice Scalia explained that once original meanings of the Constitutions when they were adopted were found, there isn’t much room to get around it. He is “handcuffed”, he says. The only alternative is the use of natural law. Let the judge decide based on the principle of natural law. The Constitution Is a Living Document Under this …show more content…

Justice Scalia also pointed out the misconception held among some of the proponents that the living Constitution would give the society greater freedom. However, Justice Scalia opined that the living constitution could eliminate and had eliminated some liberties for the individuals; the confrontation clause and the right to jury trials, for example. Moreover, Justice Scalia criticized such a view as that the proponents believe what will happen is what the majority wants to happen, and therefore, justice ought to be dependent on the Constitutions that the majority wants it to be. Nonetheless, in Justice Scalia’s view, that does not serve the purpose of the Constitutional guarantees of individual rights. Justice Scalia added that, if you believe the Constitution is not a legal text, and that it gives an effect to the most fundamental values of the society as the society changes from year to year, and thus, the Constitution should “reflect the evolving standards of decency” of the American society, the judge should not be the one to decide as Marshall declared. Rather, the legislature should be deciding what is constitutional. The Constitution then means what the majority wants it to …show more content…

I believe that it is important that interpretation of the Constitution reflects the standards of decency as the society evolves over time. This flexibility is crucial to serving the utility and efficacy in the ever-changing society because the changes we have been observing in our lives in the last couple of centuries are tremendous. We have gone from riding a horse wagon to operating a drone. What used to be considered “not unconstitutional” is widely believed to be unconstitutional today without even giving much thought to it; It is hard to believe but women did not have rights to vote not too long ago. As our lifestyle, has changed so much and “the social norm” has evolved accordingly, sometimes, it would be necessary to take these facts into consideration in the process of interpretation of the Constitution. However, it is important to keep in mind both the original intent of the writer of the Constitution at the time of adoption as well as never to deviate from its original intent of providing for the protection of individual rights. Accordingly, which approach is more appropriate would depend on the issue brought to the court because the degree of potential risks for infinite manipulation or prejudice and bias would depend on the

Show More
Related
1023 Words | 5 Pages

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

Read More
1959 Words | 8 Pages

This case is also regularly cited in other Supreme Court cases and is often a deciding factor. It has been used in cases like Konigsberg v. State Bar “That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . . " But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil.

Read More
608 Words | 3 Pages

Justice Stephens wrote the majority opinion stating that the power to vote for legislative members should be directly chosen by the people, not by the States. Powell v. McCormack established that the Qualification Clause for Congress listed in the Constitution are exclusive and the “fundamental principle of our representative democracy.” Adding such limitations to candidates takes away the direct vote from the people and destroys the “uniform national system” that the Constitution wanted for Congress. The Framers recognized that electing the legislature was a new idea that stemming from the Constitution, thus, not a right of the “original powers” of the states. The court also concluded that Framers divested the states of any power to add qualifications, because there was no right before the ratification of the Constitution.

Read More
131 Words | 1 Pages

Edwin Meese III held quite a different view as compared to that of William Brennan. Meese held the opinion of strictly following exactly what is stated in the Constitution of the United States, otherwise known as fidelity. In his essay he focuses on fidelity often. Edwin Meese portrays his belief in his essay as he quoted Justice Joseph Story, “The First and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.” (Meese).

Read More
362 Words | 2 Pages

In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan).

Read More
1541 Words | 7 Pages

Textualism, as Antonin Scalia describes it, is inconsistent in its nature. While he first claims that a good textualist would never interpret the law with the legislator’s intent in mind, Scalia later violates his own convictions by allowing for corrections of Scrivener’s errors. In principle, correcting Scrivener’s errors requires the judge to think about what the original writer meant to say with the statute, not the literal meaning of the text. This may mean adding a single additional word to the statute, but something as deceptively simple as one word could have drastic effects on the meaning of the law. Therefore, Scalia cannot claim to account for Scrivener’s errors while also chastising methods of interpretation that consider what the

Read More
1067 Words | 5 Pages

Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.

Read More
65 Words | 1 Pages

I disagree that the “Living Constitution” will destroy it because society changes and the laws that govern it need to change also. I think that Scalia was stuck in an outdated mindset of viewing the constitution. I agree with you that Breyer 's argument was the better of the two, and I agree that the interpretation of the constitution should be flexible and not be fixed.

Read More
665 Words | 3 Pages

Some people believe students should not work in fast-food chain because they can get distracted by working and the job may not provide them with skilled-based opportunities. In his essay, Amitai Etzioni, points out the bad influence fast-food chains, such as MacDonald’s, have on the students they employ. He thinks that working in fast-food chains can contribute to academic problems. The debate over whether or not students should work during school especially in fast food chain is currently a very controversial topic. I personally support Amitai Etzioni’s idea that working in fast food chains can negatively impact students’ academic careers.

Read More
1324 Words | 6 Pages

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Read More
601 Words | 3 Pages

The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.

Read More
1236 Words | 5 Pages

The evolution of amendments and the rights they bring with them is truly fascinating, and it will be interesting to see how future cases shape the world that we live

Read More
677 Words | 3 Pages

Our country is constantly evolving so whether or not something is in the constitution I believe if something is right then it should happen regardless of if it's in the constitution or

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer. To begin, the video retraces the steps leading up to the Constitutional Convention in Virginia in 1787. It opens by explaining the conflict that led to the Revolutionary War and the fragility of the new nation.

Read More
301 Words | 2 Pages

The Constitution of the united states of America means to me my rights as an American citizen. The constitution makes me feel safe from the government because it protects my rights. It lets me know the government power over the people, and the laws they can make and the laws they can not make. The Constitution ensures my freedom as an American. It is a very important document for the United States of American for the president to follow.

Read More

More about Justice Scalia Constitution

Related Topics

Open Document