Antonin Scalia Constitution

1253 Words6 Pages
When trying to determine and interpret the meaning of the Constitution some believe in what is know as originalism and others believe in the idea of a living Constitution. Originalist like Mr.Antonin Scalia, a current associate justice for the supreme court, believe that judges should aim to follow closely to the original intentions of the framers and those who ratified the Constitution. The contrary view that Mr. Stephen Breyer, also a current associate justice for the supreme court, belief is that the Constitution evolves with the times and that the Constitution should be continually interpreted. The idea describe the Constitution's ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. There’s no way to go back and…show more content…
constitution Justice Antonin Scalia believes in the principle of orginalism. According to Scalia originalist interpret the constitution by “begin with the text, and give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.”( Scalia page #1.) He then goes on to say how he believes that the Constitution, or any text should not be interpreted strictly or sloppily, but should be interpreted reasonably and to “give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.” ( Scalia page #1.) Referring to the commentaries on the constitution Scalia talks about how Jospeph Story, the writer of the commentaries, did not think the Constitution evolved. “He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted.”( Scalia page #1.) Scalia also brings up the opinions of John Marshall in the Federal Bank case, where he says, since it’s a Constitution “ you have to give its provisions expansive meaning so that they will accommodate events that you don’t know of which will happen in the future.” ( Scalia page #1.) He uses what Marshall said above to refute the idea of a Constitution that changes, he says, “ if it is a constitution that changes,you wouldn't have to give it expansive meaning. You can give it whatever meaning you want and, when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning.”( Scalia page #1.) Scalia also makes sure to say exactly how he feels about the idea of a changing and evolving constitution, he says. “ The Constitution is not a living organism for Peter’s sake; it’s a legal document and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn't say other things.”( Scalia page #3.) He then discusses how the Constitution being interpreted by originalist provides a very flexible Constitution. He uses the example of the death penalty and says, “ you think the death penalty is a good idea-persuade your fellow citizen's and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea- persuade them the other way and
Open Document