Constitutional Interpretation Essay
A main issue in government and specifically the judiciary branch is the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our ever-changing society, as it is the backbone to decisions we make regarding our nation. However, there is a debate that plagues our nation regarding this important document: Constitutional interpretation. Since the Constitution was written, judges, lawyers, and citizens alike have differed on how they believe a court should evaluate the document that gave our country the formulation it has today. There are two major approaches that officials take when evaluating the Constitution: an originalist approach and a living document approach. Originalism is an approach where judges and lawyers interpret the Constitution as it was
…show more content…
There are many differences between the two interpretations, but which can set one above the other in an evolving country? One way to compare the two is through the officials that enact them. With an original interpretation, judges and lawyers must know exactly what the framers intended, which is a hard task. They must be historians- where they can go back to the history of the founding and know and apply the specific thoughts of the founders. When a judge or lawyer uses a living document approach, their job is to read the text and interpret and apply it to the situation at hand, as is viewed as the function of a lawyer or judge (Strauss 6). To some, a living Constitution approach may seem more fit in regards to the job and purpose of the Court. Another way to evaluate each method with the other is how the law is expressed. In an originalist interpretation, the law is seen as an expression of values chosen by the framers in the text, whereas a living Constitution is evaluated continuously and interpreted through a changing society and evolving situations (Sandalow 1034). Anyone can choose what they feel the better approach may be, but in consideration of a progressing society, the living Constitution may seem more fit to allow the country to grow and develop as a nation without being stuck in the
There are many differences between the two interpretations, but which can set one above the other in an evolving country? One way to compare the two is through the officials that enact them. With an original interpretation, judges and lawyers must know exactly what the framers intended, which is a hard task. They must be historians- where they can go back to the history of the founding and know and apply the specific thoughts of the founders. When a judge or lawyer uses a living document approach, their job is to read the text and interpret and apply it to the situation at hand, as is viewed as the function of a lawyer or judge (Strauss 6). To some, a living Constitution approach may seem more fit in regards to the job and purpose of the Court. Another way to evaluate each method with the other is how the law is expressed. In an originalist interpretation, the law is seen as an expression of values chosen by the framers in the text, whereas a living Constitution is evaluated continuously and interpreted through a changing society and evolving situations (Sandalow 1034). Anyone can choose what they feel the better approach may be, but in consideration of a progressing society, the living Constitution may seem more fit to allow the country to grow and develop as a nation without being stuck in the