The U.S. Constitution: Originalism v Living Consti

826 Words4 Pages
One of the most important dilemmas in front of the United States is the interpretation of the federal constitution by Supreme Court. The debate on the constitution interpretation is between the originalism and living constitution. The viewpoint of originalism is that the constitution had an original sense and that its texts should be understood with the meaning from which they were written, and the understanding of the constitution does not change with the times. The viewpoint of living constitution is that the constitution understands changes and each generation can interpret it to adaption to the society problem. I agree with the originalism way of thinking because, the constitution is a basic document that needs to be used as a guideline. The ideas of the original meaning of the constitution have been regularly challenged in basic ways. This is the common ideas and example supported by living constitution adherent. The assertion that the constitution should be understood differently — that it is a living constitution that means something different today than it meant when it was adopted, for example — is now itself quite old . It is not thought that adherence to original meaning is one alternative among many, a choice that might be made or that might not. (Whittington, 2008). It is dangerous to leave to the judges the authority to interpret the constitution in a way that cannot be free of subjectivity. Indeed, if the judge has his sole conscious to indicate the objective interpretation of a piece of original law, America will be subjugated under a regimen of contradictory interpretations. “Judges should not feel free to pour their own political values and ideals into the constitution” ( Whittington,2008, p162). Spalding (2008) gave great details about how difficult it was to come to an agreement on a constitution with all of the colonies, in his paper on
Open Document