Pros And Cons Of Interpreting Of The Constitution

The Constitution is an essential document to not only the American judiciary system, but to American society as well. Though the document’s intended purpose is to protect the people, it has caused much controversy among them. The controversy arises in the argument of how the people should be interpreting the text of the Constitution. Originalists argue the text is meant to be interpreted in the literal sense, instrumentalists oppose this view arguing that the text of the Constitution is meant to be interpreted in relevance to today (adapted to modern times). This argument is discussed by Lawrence B. Solum in parts one and two of, “The Supreme Court in Bondage: Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights”.

He does what he does best and writes about the disputes in this section of law. We learn that originalists listen to the text and only the text, and are found to be more conservative. Solum even uses the words interchangeably stating, “…precedents against conservative (originalist) constitutionalism...” (156). On the opposing side, we find instrumentalists who are found to be more liberal, and believe the text is meant to be adapted to the modern day and be a “living Constitution”. Solum states their beliefs as, “…reasoning about constitutional precedents should focus on policy or a balancing of relevant interests.” (156). The cause of this argument is the vagueness the framers created. Originalists say it exists so the text could not be changed and instrumentalists says it was purposeful so the document would be able to change with the eras and always remain relevant. Solum consequently titles this section, “Introduction: Contemporary Debates About Constitutional Stare

He claimed that the characters were pictures of nature and needed to be interpreted into poetry as much. Much like originalists Fenollosa interpreted the text literally and only literally and need to be executed in the literal sense. He had stated, “…Chinese words are alive and plastic, because thing and action are not formally separated...”, sounding much like an originalist point of view. Once Fenollosa passed away, his wife passed his works down to Pound, a huge figure in the modernist movement. Pound interpreted the text as Fenollosa did, but instead of only sticking to the literal, Pound was simply inspired by the Chinese characters when it came to poetry. Much like instrumentalists, he understands the cold text, but modernizes it to make it relevant to the modern day. As Professor Williams had stated in lecture, “Pound modified Fenellosa’s essay from Buddhist into modern