The Constitution Essay

1253 WordsMar 12, 20126 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 ask the Framers of the constitution how they would want the text to be interpreted but should the Courts seek the “original meaning” of the Constitution? or should we follow the idea of a “living Constitution?” In regards to interpreting the U.S. 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

More about The Constitution Essay

Open Document