Originalist vs. Living Constitution

1353 Words6 Pages
Originalist vs. Living Constitution The originalist view and the living constituion view are two different ways that people view the Constitution and arguments for the right view have been going on for years now. Orginalism is the view that people should interpret the Constitution by its original meaning. This “meaning” is the meaning that the original founders of the Constitution intended it to be. Basically, these people view the Constitution as a finished project. This term was coined by Paul Brest in 1981 and he defined originalism as “the familiar approach to constitutional adjudication that accords binding authority to the text of the Constitution or the intentions of its adopters.” The living constitution view means that the Constitution is a “living” document. Such as a living person changes over time, so does the Constitution. These people view the Constitution as an initial framework for governance that sets politics in motion and must be filled out over time through constitutional construction. So the goal of this is to get the government started and keep it going and stable so it can solve future problems of governance. With the key word being “future” it is understandable that people who support the living constitution view believe that the Constitution was specifically written to be flexible for future changes and amendments. As stated before, the term originalism was originally defined by the former dean of Stanford Law School, Paul Brest, in a 1981 article. Some important followers of orginalism are Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork who are all serving on the United States Supreme Court. The term living constitution comes from the title of a book that was written by Professor Howard McBain in 1927. Some important figures who helped develop this concept in their modern form were Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis
Open Document