ipl-logo

Pros And Cons To The Interpretation Of The Constitution

446 Words2 Pages

In chapter 1, Mr. Levin begins by summarizing the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The primary purpose as explained was to create a government that is very limited in its scope and size so it cannot overstep on the rights or prerogatives of the states or individual citizens alike. They also created the judiciary branch to stay separate from the legislative and executive branches, “With a narrow role and limited authority-a judiciary that respected, applied, and preserved the rule of law…(Levin.11).” The founding fathers would be “appalled” by our current judiciary. The book explains how they have severely overstepped their authority and now tell the people, and even the rest of the government what to do, as well as supporting foreign and …show more content…

Too the non-originalists (activists), the Constitution is a document like any other reference text, not the true law of our country, their interpretations span the distance of their imagination. “Judges are not to overturn the will of legislative majorities absenting violation of a constitutional right, as those rights were understood by the framers,” Robert Bork(Levin.13). The biggest difference is originalists interpret the law based on the provisions of the constitution to advance social good or fix an actual injustice; whereas the activists interpret the law based on the desired outcome they want. Four examples of activists gaining their result by ignoring mandates or unsurprising legislative authority are Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, and Roe v. Wade. Justice Taney in decision of Dred Scott made up his own facts to say the it was clear in the constitution that only whites were citizens therefore loosing Scott his right to sue for freedom. Taney also summarized that slaves were property and cited the Fifth Amendment to claim it would be unconstitutional to ban slavery in the Louisiana

Open Document