Should the Constitution be interpreted by the Supreme Court as a living, evolving document responsive to the times (Living Constitution, Loose Construction) or should the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution as literally as possible, closely aligned with the text and with what the intentions of the founding fathers were (Strict Construction, Originalism)?
Please leave a comment as a response to this question.
For those of you who want some practice reviewing terms and ideas for the Constitution Test, please click on the Constitution links to the right.
Terms to add to your Nexus:
Judicial Review
Marbury v Madison
Federal District Court
Appellate Court
Supreme Court
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Judicial Restraint
Judicial Activism
Strict Construction
Loose Construction
Originalism
Living Constitution
Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction
Writ of Certiorari
Attainder
Corruption of Blood
posted by Jan Yourist at 6:14 PM
24 Comments:
It should be interpreted as a living and evolving document, because if it wasn't new and changing times wouldn't match up to the Constitution, and we would still be living in a style from long ago. Also if the framers had intended it to be a frozen document why would they think of Article V (amendments)? The framers wanted the people to question their government, mold, and change the Constitution if they thought a law was wrong. The idea was that they knew they would make mistakes, and they knew times changed, and they wanted the people to change the Constitution along with the changing times.
The Constitution be interpreted by the Supreme Court as a living, evolving document responsive to the times.
i think the constitution should be interpreted as the literal words because the founding fathers spend along time on the constitution and they wouldnt be to happy if they found out that their constitution was being taken the wwrong way.
i refuse to get preachy, but come on. i find it hard to take the constitution in any other way but as a living document. that goes for EVERYTHING taken very literally, including religious texts. laws are (usually) based on what's considered proper at that specific time period, no?
also, add to this the fact that the framers were not gods. their words are not absolute and they had to make compromises.
not that any of these thoughts are original.
oh yeah, it's hope.
the constitution should definitely be free to evolve with time. things are so much different now than they were when the constitution was thought up that, it seems to me, perfectly logical that the constitution be responsive to the times. the framers left many aspects of our constitution vague, and we'll never know why. maybe it's because they knew that the future would be different, maybe because they didn't know at all what the future would hold.
to use a weird metaphor. think of the constitution as a pair of pants you're buying. you want these pants to last for a long time, maybe the rest of your life. but you don't know how much weight you may gain in the future, so you may want to allow room for developement, buy a pair of pants that fit loosely. maybe you'll need a belt, but as long as there's room to grow, those pants will fit you!
..i hope that made any sense.
this is why layla is shmexay and luffable.
IT LIVES.
I personally believe that the Constitution's main purpose is to outline the general beliefs that are the foundation of what our country is supposed to and expected to be.
The rules and systems that are in the constitution are all based off of those beliefs [general welfare, equality, liberty, etc.] and they are there to make sure that everyone will always have the correct GENERAL idea. The part saying that you cannot "corrupt the blood" of someone who has committed treason or whatever simply cannot be interpreted to be the opposite.
We should keep up with the general ideas and use THEM as our principles, instead of the specific rules, because the specific rules all stem from the general idea. There are more cases and examples out there that probably aren't in the constitution, if you believe in the constitution, then you should believe in the values that are the base of it.
I think the constitution should be a living, evolving thing because i don't think the founding fathers intended that it be a completely firm document, I think the way it was written they had to expect some interpretation.
it is definantly living
there is no way that the founding fathers could know what will happen in the countrys future, and because of this coudn't be right all the time
this is why they made the constitution amendable, if they thought their document was to be absolute, there would be no amendments i think that anyone against the constitution being flexabe is against alot of what the constitution stands for if we interpeted it the way it was orriginally writen...there would still be slavery!
the constitution has to be living!!! times change, and so should the constitution. new problems arise and laws take care of them (at least they try to) plus, the constitution isn't that detailed, so it's hard to interpret word for word. in addition, the framers didn't want people to be sheep...and they wanted people to be able to have a voice in what the constitution says (if people found it to be wrong)
also, i simply love layla's metaphor. i totally understood it.
oh, this is marissa, by the way.
i think it should be living and evolving constitution, because i don't think it was meant to be written and to be taken in one way, and have no room for other interpretations... if that made sense.
I think that it should be taken in as a real and living document. The founding fathers were trying to get so many things to change, but it happened. I also think that it is almost all based off of personal opinions.
It appears as though we all agree.
Hmmm, I think there is one dissenting voice. Read carefully.
The Constitution should be read as a living document, because that's the only way people have room for interpretation. If decisions were made based on the exact words of the Constitution, then no one would have any views, or discussions, and everything would only be one way.
oh by the way... this is sapana!!
i think i change my mind
Don't necessarily be swayed by the majority. There are several justices (at least three maybe four) on the Supreme Court who would agree with what you have said, bannunagirl.
after all these interesting responses, what can I say?
oh yeah. I forgot to answer the question. I think the constitution should be a living constitution. (one of our constitution terms...)
Hmmm....
Unfortunatly, I agree with the majority.Boo how boring..
For those who choose to interpert the constitution word for word, here are a few words to interpert: "WE THE PEOPLE". The idea behind these words are that the nation should be governed by the people.
Thomas Jefferson, the man who worte these famous words, belived the "people" should only include the well informed public. The well informed public would exlude many people in lower social classes. Does this mean poor people shouldnt have rights, becuase a man who died over 200 years ago was against it? I'm sure the foundng fathers didnt intend "the people" to include women or blacks either. Does that mean they shouldnt have the right to free speech, a vote?
The words the founding fathers wrote, if interperted literally, will prevent progress towards eqality, and a better government. These men could not have anticipated the events of the next 250 years. The founding fathers left constitution flexible, to be interperted, amended, and improved by "the people".
really?
cool.
then i guess i dont change my mind. I DUNNO WHAT IM THINKING!
argh
Well, both. Becasue 50 years from now we may not bealive at all in what the constitution says and new things may happen to better the USA and this would stnad in the way.
Post a Comment
<< Home