ipl-logo

Justice Scalia Originalism

1450 Words6 Pages

Distinguished by the clarity of his constitutional vision and his dedication to fighting for textualism and originalism, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is regarded as one of the most influential justices of the twentieth century. In his A Matter of Interpretation, Scalia asserts himself as a textualist, meaning that he interprets a text as it is written, neither more nor less (Scalia, 23). Likewise, this idea of textualism and originalism is one that asserts the Constitution means no more, or less, than what it meant to those who originally authored and established it. This originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is the opposite of the modern and more liberal approach, which is commonly referred to as the “living …show more content…

Rather, the United States’ judicial system should remain impartial and consistent while interpreting the laws as they are written. Also, the Constitution is not an optional document to reference, rather, it is our nation’s original rule book by which the judicial system should base its decisions and interpretations on. As one of the most influential and transformative justices of his time, Justice Scalia’s vision for the Constitution included that of which it is to nail things down so they would last. Although our nation is constantly changing, the Constitution must remain the foundation of our existence as a sovereign nation, and the document itself must not be loosely interpreted and disregarded by flawed and power-hungry justices. To maintain the integrity of our judicial system and maintain a prosperous future for America, it is important we follow Justice Scalia’s vision and leave the Constitution as it was when it was first adopted, while also not repeatedly ignoring and broadly misinterpreting its

Show More
Related
181 Words | 1 Pages

Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.

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
243 Words | 1 Pages

SCOTUS is a far cry from Alexander Hamilton’s claim in The Federalist #78 that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because, the judiciary lacked the powers of the purse and of the sword, it had neither force nor will, but merely judgment.

Read More
646 Words | 3 Pages

He expanded the power of the Supreme Court by declaring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court Justices were the final deciders. In the Marbury vs. Madison case, Marshall wrote "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” John Marshall was clearly in favor of judicial power, and believed that the Supreme Court should have the final say in cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution. While establishing this, he kept the separation of powers in mind, as he wanted equal representation among the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. In the Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall declared that the Judicial Branch could not force Madison to deliver the commission.

Read More
439 Words | 2 Pages

The rule of law is reflected as a core principle of our nation and vital to ordered liberty. To rightly govern the American rule of law it is essential to acknowledge the continuity between the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The United States of America “government” is framed by these two important documents. The principles of the Declaration of Independence constitute the foundation of the government based on the universal equality of all human beings, and the U.S. Constitution founds the political process that is to be followed by the elected officials in governing the people. One cannot be without the other; both are essential for a stable government.

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
194 Words | 1 Pages

Prior to the reading of both essays of Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese my personal opinion was to interpret the constitution as best fitting for the current situation, whatever that may be. Post reading that opinion that I held changed. After reading these essays I realized that it is more important to stick as closely to what the framers of the constitution meant as possible. As stated in Meese’s essay, “Any true approach to constitutional interpretation must respect the document in all its parts and be faithful to the Constitution in its entirety.

Read More
1629 Words | 7 Pages

Yes, it is true that the legal system is evolving, and legal interpretations must change to consider the ways in which society is evolving. However, I feel Justice Thomas stresses the need to be true to the original meaning of the Constitution, seeing it as the foundation upon which all other judicial rulings should be based. According to him, the Constitution offers a timeless structure that can adapt to changing social norms without compromising its core values. Justice Thomas expresses significant concern about some cultural attitudes and socioeconomic trends in his views on modern society. He expresses uncertainty about popular myths and stereotypes while promoting originality and rational thought.

Read More
339 Words | 2 Pages

The Supreme Court is an extremely important part of government. As such, we need healthy judges that are on top of their mental game. Therefore, term limits are necessary because newer judges can have a different point of view, mental health will be reduced, and the majority of Americans support term limits. If we have newer judges they will have a different point of view. In the article, Christopher stated that “It would mean a court that more accurately refers the changes and judgements of the society.”

Read More
875 Words | 4 Pages

I don’t think the courts should seek the original meaning of the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution were intelligent people. They designed our Constitution to stand the test of time. They wrote the constitution not only to address their current issues, but to establish the basic principles that would sustain a new nation for the future. Today this can be broken down once again to a Republican vs Democratic debate.

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
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
429 Words | 2 Pages

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.

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

More about Justice Scalia Originalism

Related Topics

Open Document