ipl-logo

Originalism: Judicial Interpretation In The United States

738 Words3 Pages

Throughout the years, distinct constitutional methodologies have developed and are considered for judicial interpretation. From the various that have developed, Originalism stands out the most to me. Originalism was created for the purpose of considering original objectives when the United States Constitution is interpreted by the court. The foundation of this methodology is to consider the original text of the United States Constitution as the primary source to be used for interpretation. The US Constitution is considered the absolute law of the land and therefore should be used explicitly as guidance in judicial interpretation. Using merely the Constitution for judicial interpretations is very important because the purpose for the creation …show more content…

The neutrality in applying and developing principals comes from the obligation for judicial interpretation to be based off of the United States Constitution instead of political preference or ideas. Using neutrality when considering principles is extremely important since judges must have consistency in their interpretations regardless of the case. “The original public understanding is the touch-stone of constitutional analysis: ‘All that counts is how the words used in the Constitution would have been understood at the time’” (Wilkinson, pg. 37). The Constitution gives judicial review not only consistency in its application because all interpretations come from the one source, but also credibility in the public’s eye. Judicial Review credibility is product of consistency in applying the principles and the predictability that comes from it. “If the courts are merely enforcing the Constitution as the Framers intended, then the legitimacy problems should be directed at the Constitution itself, not the judicial messengers” (Wilkinson, pg. 45). The great amount of acceptance really comes from the fact that the majority if not everyone understands and agrees on the importance of using the original text of the Constitution for …show more content…

The problem with all the methodologies is that they fail to follow through with judicial restraint. “Activism still characterizes many judicial decision, and originalist judges have been among the worst offenders. They may sincerely strive to discover and apply the Constitution’s original understanding, but somehow personal preferences and original understandings seemingly manage to converge” (Wilkinson, pg. 46). Originalism aims at requiring for the sole use of the United States Constitution as a basis for judgments and while many disagree, it has put a limit to judicial power. Judicial dependence on the US Constitution proves that their power is limited since they are not originators of the law and must use original text to appropriately dictate. It is a matter of interpretation; many times the judicial manage to agree on the original records of a certain topic and other times it is too complex to arrive at an agreement. “Originalism would guide judges in determining when an act was unconstitutional, but the Court would intervene only where the act's unconstitutionality was beyond question” (Alicea

Show More
Related

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright

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

Segal And Spaeth's Argument Analysis

1314 Words | 6 Pages

In regards to the detailed studies of both Segal and Spaeth, and Brenan and Stier, valid points had been made for both sides of the argument. The question posed is rather or not stare decisis still exist in the courts rulings today. Segal and Spaeth analyze the rulings of dissenting judges of landmark cases since the start of the Warren Court while excluding cases with unanimous decisions and cases without progeny within the legal period. The areas of which they dissected and constructed the particular datasets for analyzing is superb as it specifically narrows down the specific information there looking for within their results. The findings from there assessments concluded that precedent did not play a overwhelming role in the sub sequential

Read More

Constitutional Dbq Essay

1227 Words | 5 Pages

The Constitution is frequently thought to be the preeminent law of the United States that all laws made after it ought to maintain. Hamilton expressed that "the Constitution should be the standard of development for the laws, and that wherever there is an obvious restriction, the laws should offer place to the Constitution" (Document E). In any case, there have been times in United States history where a law has been passed that collides with the Constitution. On the off chance that the Constitution truly is the preeminent law of the United States, than any unlawful law that is passed ought to be toppled. In the event that the Supreme Court did not have the force of legal audit, than the privileges of the Constitution would gradually be taken away by new laws that contention with the Constitution.

Read More

Compare And Contrast Edwin Meese And William Brennan

774 Words | 4 Pages

Both of them spoke about the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the way in which we should use their original theories. During his Speech to the Federalist Lawyer Society, Meese, a former Attorney General of the United States, argued for “originalism” which means that judges should seek and apply the founder’s constitutional understanding as they decide cases.

Read More

What Is Justice Anton Scalia Originalism

2663 Words | 11 Pages

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society. I. Antonin Scalia: A brief overview of his law career beginning in 1961.

Read More

What Is The Theme Of Judicial Tyranny The New Kings Of America

1094 Words | 5 Pages

However, the new trend has been to make the document mean what you want or to just disregard it and issue new laws. The modern view is that “the Constitution is what the judges say it is (p.30)”. Sutherland throughout the book that this is assumption not correct, because if this were true, than the final authority would rest with the judges, not with the people. This line of thinking is dangerous, as it makes those tasked with interpreting the Constitution essentially able to edit it to say whatever they want, regardless of what the document actually says on a matter. With the judges making wild rulings about freedoms and laws, they are undermining and assuming the duties of Congress, something they are clearly prohibited from

Read More

Stonewall Riots Essay

648 Words | 3 Pages

This is evident since the judicial branch cannot enforce power, it cannot approach matters, but matters have to seek the judiciary, and public opinion influences the court’s decisions to a great extent. When the President and Congress think that

Read More

Explain The Strengths Of The Judicial Branch

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

Judicial Tyranny The New Kings Of America Summary

2308 Words | 10 Pages

All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny.

Read More

Why Do We Need To Keep The Supreme Court Essay

1957 Words | 8 Pages

We need to protect the principles that have defined America for more than 200 years. In recent years, talking about reforming the Supreme Court has become popular. However, in today's world, one of the topics known as court-packing is only a debate because some political parties take issue with rulings that don't go their

Read More

Advantages Of The Living Constitution Approach

391 Words | 2 Pages

The living constitution approach implies that consequences do guide decisions because rules are bent and the original meaning of the documents are reinterpreted and applied to modern situations. Originalists argue that one cannot look to judges to come up with different answers because one does not like what happens when you apply the original view. However, as strong as this argument against the living constitution approach is, they still uphold timeless principles through these actions but just not as strictly as the Originalists do. An example of this is the confrontation clause debate about whether an accused molester should or should not be required to confront the child accuser in court. The Originalist approach says that the molester should be required to confront the child accuser because consequences cannot be considered and we must stick to the original view of the documents.

Read More

Judicial Review Pros And Cons

741 Words | 3 Pages

Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.

Read More

Key Constitutional Concepts By Leonore Annemore Annenberg Institute For Civics

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

Supreme Court Justice Research Paper

517 Words | 3 Pages

The Supreme Courts job is not to correct the errors of other courts but to resolve substantial legal issues. The courts own guidelines say there must be "compelling reasons" for accepting a case. When the supreme court accepts a case the majority of the justices disagree with the rulings made in the lower courts. The courts then make a decision indicating which party won the case.

Read More

Personal Statement Of Purpose: A Career As A Clinical Assistant

489 Words | 2 Pages

Through my career, I’ve learned that medicine evolves daily. Medical training has provided the necessary tools to treat patients, yet systemic issues remain with far more elusive solutions. Although my engineering background has molded my analytical approach, successful medical leadership requires extra skills to address concerns of all involved parties. With this in mind, a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) tailored to physicians will enhance my knowledge of the broader issues affecting clinical medicine and empower me to enact meaningful change beyond my patient panel. Although residency prepared me to become a clinician, the most challenging issues involved advocating for resources, improving education, and ensuring patient safety among the greater institutional goals, particularly financial viability.

Read More

More about Originalism: Judicial Interpretation In The United States

Related Topics

Open Document