This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

Originalist Essay

1051 words - 5 pages

Everyone in America likes the constitution but it’s vague. The Supreme Court has their way of interpreting the constitution. The judicial interpretation of the constitution consists of five different interpretations. The Judicial Branch job is to uphold the constitution however; their view about the constitution is different in interpreting what it says or doesn’t say. The Supreme Court is presented with cases that they have to decide if it has constitutional validity, this task is known as judicial review. They make this decisions based on their own judicial interpretation theory. The five judicial interpretation theories are Natural Law theory, Pragmatist, Internationalist and Originalist that includes textualist and intentionalist. At of all these five theories the best one is the Originalist, textualist theory. Why make the constitution vague if it can be simplified into the real words the founders said? We can narrow the constitution interpretation into one theory and it would be beneficial to all.

The Originalist’s theory represent What Would the Founding Fathers Say? The Founding Fathers created the constitution for a reason, being that it would presumably be the law of the land and it has. The constitution is known as “the supreme law of the land” and for that reason it should be followed as it is written, it includes everything that the Founding Fathers created to help run a country. The original intent of the Founding Fathers is meant to be kept, who are we to change their views on things? When they wrote it out for us, what they wrote is what we should follow. We cannot be rule by the passions of our time and not consider the constitution and the past. We are bound to the constitution as it serves as a mean to help preserve the views of the Founding Fathers. If we don’t have an Originalist theory then everyone would be subject to their own elitist opinions and values. It focused on the idea of the framers; we have followed their steps in conserving this nation so why wouldn’t we take into consideration and ask ourselves what would our founding father say? We should see the constitution as if we were there in the presences of its creation. We want to keep the ideas of the framers going. “All that counts is how the words used in the Constitution would have need understood at the time.” (Bork)

The other theories are not proper use for interpretation of the constitution. A Natural Law theorist being blinded by the idea of a higher moral law. A law that questions our consciences and above all a law above a law. When interpreting the constitution one must not have their own feeling mix into the decision-making. They need to have an objective criteria to make decisions. This is an unknown theory based on unknown concept. The duty of the judges is to keep the constitution not to exam the human conscience. An Intentionalist’s theory, mistake is that it tries to stretch the meaning of the constitution. The constitution tells us exactly...

Find Another Essay On Originalist

Nonoriginalist Adjudication Essay

1982 words - 8 pages Nonoriginalist Adjudication: A Troubling Approach to Constitutional Interpretation In the 1980 law review, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding”, Paul Brest challenges traditional approaches to Constitutional interpretation by proposing non-originalist adjudication, a method that “accords the text and original history of the Constitution presumptive weight, but does not treat them as authoritative or binding” (p. 70). This

Judicial Minimalism and Mazimalist in Court Rulings

2351 words - 10 pages originalist technique will seek to establish the initial intent or meaning that the Constitution intended. This very principal is seen in Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in U.S Term Limits, Inc v. Thonrton. The issue at hands revolves around the idea of state law adding certain conditional limitations on candidates running for state legislators and executive officials. Ultimately, the court determined that adding additional requirements is not

Interpreting the Constitution

1707 words - 7 pages interpret the laws. They figure since the Constitution was written in 1788, that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, you have people that believe that you should interpret the laws that come in with using the Constitution the same way judges did way back then. An example of a person that is a textualism would be Supreme Court Antonin Scalia and a person that is a originalist is Supreme Court

America's Social Decline

829 words - 3 pages limited in tenure in order to avoid the natural propensity for government to expand which is evidently what happened. Another critical point in my estimation was the Supreme Court ruling I cited in the paper. I think there is a lot of non-originalist interpretation that takes place in today’s government and having precedence such as that furthers the cause of the expansion of government giving legislators a precedence to site towards whatever

Schenck v. US

1025 words - 4 pages this case but rather The First Amendment in the context of the Espionage Act. The Court neither used an originalist, literalistic, nor textualist interpretation of the law, because there wasn’t any precedent for this situation in regards to the Constitution. The Supreme Court voted in favor of the United States unanimously so there weren’t any dissenting opinions. I agree with the court in saying that Schenck was Illegal in his actions. However

Justice Antonin Scalia

1061 words - 5 pages before he left public service to teach, he had returned and was sworn in on 17 August 1982. Four short years later, President Reagan nominated him as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, on which he has been an “originalist” sticking strictly to textual interpretation since he took the oath of office on 26 September, 1986. In a pretty recent court case, Reno vs. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999), Justice Scalia

The Importance of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifthteenth Amendendments

1823 words - 8 pages practiced in 1868 and had been around for a very long time did not change the fact that it was and always had been unconstitutional. For this reason, the Supreme Court was on solid originalist ground when it struck down segregation in public schools(Calabresi).” The ruling of this case paved the way for integration of races and the ideas reflected in the fourteenth Amendment which evolved the meaning and interpretation of the Amendment as we

Individual Ministerial Responsibility

1643 words - 7 pages preserve its essential equilibrium? Three principles best encapsulate the interpretive norms to which Madison originally subscribed. First, it is plausible to assume that his approach to constitutional interpretation would have been cautiously conservative and even originalist in this sense: that the aim of interpretation should be to preserve the original boundaries between departments and jurisdictions laid out in the text of the Constitution

An Evaluation of One Case at a Time

2520 words - 11 pages . With categorization including originalist and extremist among others, judicial officials are typically classified based off the way they decipher the constitution. One approach in particular is known as minimalism. Minimalist attempt to address issues through a case-by-case manner and rule vary narrowly. This technique possesses many advantages and a well as some possible liabilities. In his book One case at a Time, Professor Cass Sunstein

Is Abortion A Constitutional Right?

1993 words - 8 pages , the Court divided pregnancy into three periods, which are universally known as trimesters, each representing about three months. Based on this division of pregnancy, the Supreme Court concluded that abortion was a constitutional right, and that the states could interfere only after the first six months.However, Scalia's originalist approach to an examination of the Constitution would show abortion is never explicitly mentioned in the text, and

The Importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

3317 words - 13 pages the courts have granted congress enforcement powers far beyond what the framers of the amendment intended. Judge Robert Bork, a noted proponent of the originalist philosophy of constitutional interpretation, said that in the hands of the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment has been an instrument of, “judicial imperialism.“ However, in looking at how the amendment was a direct reaction to the Black Codes and the failure of the Civil Rights

Similar Essays

Robert Bork's "The Right Of Privacy". An Examination Of The Landmark Case Griswald V. Conneticut

877 words - 4 pages Robert Bork's The Right of Privacy examined the landmark case Griswald v. Conneticut. Bork's 'originalist' view proclaimed that Justice Douglas erroneously interpreted the right of privacy from the Constitution. The originalist view is that judges must strictly adhere to the language of the Constitution, thus people do not have a general right to privacy because it was never actually written into the Constitution. This view severely restricts

Interpretation Of The U.S. Constitution Essay

1304 words - 5 pages contract between the United States Government and it’s citizens. A contract cannot be changed when a different outcome is desired by certain people. That basic principle is where originalist like Justice Antonin Scalia rest their beliefs about the Constitution and governmental rights and respsonbilities. Retired Justice, William J. Brennan, Jr was nominated by President Eisenhower and took his seat on on the Supreme Court panel in 1956. Known

Clarence Thomas Essay

1011 words - 5 pages and seizure, however, Thomas often favors police over defendants, such as students involved in extracurricular activities be tested for drugs. From 1994 to 2004 Thomas was the third most frequent dissenter on the Court, and he continues to make a difference in the judicial branch. Works Cited Rappaport, Mike . "Miller v. Alabama: Justice Thomas’s Originalist Dissent."Online Library of Law and Liberty RSS. N.p., 27 Aug. 2012. Web. 5 Dec. 2013

Well, Is It Alive Or Isn’t It?

980 words - 4 pages definition is better in terms of perspective. In other words, the majority that disagrees with a court’s ruling always call it judicial activism at its worst. Otherwise, the ruling is declared an astute, unbiased, and judicious interpretation at its finest. “Halleluiah,” we chant before the throne of “Originalist Thinking.” Don’t mess with the Constitution; go in peace! Everyone, regardless of political philosophy, loves to worship at the