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)?
posted by Jan Yourist at 7:33 AM
35 Comments:
I think that the government should follow the constitution to a point where it is fair. They should ask the american people whether it is fair or not by letting the american people vote on it.
Frank
I think that the government should change the Constitution as we grow. Technology, the Constitution has nothing to say about modern Technology. The Constitution should gradually change so it will adapt to modern lifestyle.
Matt
I think that the constitution should stay the same way. I think this because i personally like the way the constitution is built. But at the same time i wish the American people could be more involved in the government.
Frank
Hey, its Leslie S.
I think that we should choose to see the Constitusion as a living document. I think this because if we stick to seeing it as it was used when it was first written then so many important disputes would be veiwed in the way it did back then, but that isn't right because the times, they are a-changing!!!!!! And the way we see the Constitution has to change along with it.
I think that the government should evaluate the constitution as living document that changes, and evolves with the time because there was no way for the writers to know what would happen in the futre and for them to write in laws to govern the said case. So if we take the constitution as a document that can evolve to suit the time, then we will not have as big of an problem that we would have if we just used the Constitiution word by word.
I think the constitution should be interprited as a living document because if you read it literally many laws today shouldnt be in place even if they help support our country. people who say the contitution should be interprited literally are basically saying we have not become a more complex people over the past 200 years
-maor
I think that the constitution should be considered a living document because if we tried to view the constitution litteraly we would have so many problems that would never get solved because not everything could be stated in the contitution when it was written because they cannot look into the future. The constitution has to grow and adapt to the world right now and not 2OO years ago because things change and new things are happening all the time.
Katherine G.
I think that the Supreme Court Justices should use both strict constructionism and "living Constitution." I think that for some things need to be interpreted narrowly, and since things have changed, some things need to be interpreted more loosely. There are somethings that aren't very broad and are just plain and simple, but there are other things which should be interpreted more openly and should be able to be changed a little according to the times.
Elizabeth M.
I definitely thank the consitution is a living document and should be interpreted according the time period. Things change in the world and we cannot be so blind that we continue treating something the same way we did in 1887. We must be able to change our views according to current situations.
-Isaac SB
I think that the government should follow a living Constition. As we talked about in class today, times are changing and there are some modern issues that the Constitution does not address. For certain decisions to be made, there must be a liberal view on how to interpret the Constitution. Also, when the Constitution was first written, it was intended to last for a while. Those who wrote it must have known some things would change and probably intended it to be interpreted differently throughout different times.
I think that the government should tighten the screws in the constitution as life continues, and make it a living constitution. They should learn from constitutional conflicts like at Little Rock, AR, and make adjustments so that things like that don't happen again.
The constitution should be our ground for laws. But we cannot rely on it's sad to say dated judgement alone. If the constitution had the 3/5ths act I can bet you here and here that the number of "originalists" would be severely lacking. The 1st ammendment and other such are great, and should not be tampered with, but many others, while should keep their basic values, should be changed around ever so slightly.
well i think that the goverment need to use the constitution to its potential. meaning that they should take a look at it and see what it means to them and help teach it to everyone. this would help in many ways and would make america smarter in their choices.
SHANE
I think the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution as a "living constitution". Times are changing and the constitution shouldn't apply to things that happened a long time ago. They should be thought of differently and up- dated for problems that are happening now in the present. If we look at the constitution and have it stay the same, there will be a lot of disputes that won't get solved. I think the constitution should be a living document.
Aasha H.
Humanities
Periods 6-7
11/13/07
government should be able to to change according to modern times and ethics. i do think that judges should use there judgement and not change the constitution into something it was not meant to be. also americans should be able to voice there opinions on how the court is doing.
I think the constitution should be interpreted as a living constitution. This is because even the most straightforward parts of the constitution might have other applications that the founding father might not have even thought of. Take the freedom of religion. Seems pretty straightforward, right? But take an example where a boy where's a dagger to school because it is a part of his religion. The school suspends him because it is against the rules to bring weapons to school. Is the boy's freedom of religion being thwarted? Nowhere in the constitution does it say " If a weapon is a part of your religion, you may take it to school." In fact, the constitution does not even mention education at all. Unless you believe America is exactly the same it was in 1788, and you think the Founding Fathers wanted it to stay that way, it is impossible to agree with Originalism.
Grace
The Government should let the constitution mold and form as the society changes, so that it can be used effectively in any situation.
Amy F
The Constitution can't cover every single legal problem we have, so we have to interpret. We can't possibly interpret it from the point of view of people who lived hundreds of years ago; we have to interpret it by today's standards.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey. JA here.
I personally feel that the constitution is an old document, and is rather dated.
The perfect thing would be if a completely unbiased group of representatives where to draft a new constitution and put it into effect with an amendment. While I'm dreaming, I'd like a laptop too.
Such a complete replacement is impossible, both due to to the fact that no one is unbiased, and that the constitution has more symbolic value than legal.
If a president were to suddenly rewrite the constitution or drastically change everything (Hint, hint: Pakistan) they would be viewed as a complete dictator in the eyes of the press, the citizens, and other countries. This is just impossible.
What we can do, however, is make sure that we always interpret the constitution as fitting to our current times. If we do so, we retain the symbolic allure of an old document, but the adaptability of a much newer one. In such a way, we thus seal the vulnerability of having a small number of people affect our future policy. If we are to keep "updating" it gradually, we limit the amount of power a single person has and increase the hypothetical group's size as well. The larger the group is, the closer it is to a representation of all citizens.
On a completely unrelated note:
There's a website, called FreeRice.com in which you take a vocabulary test (I'm not kidding!). For every correct answer, you donate ten grains of rice to a starving person in a poor African country. The donations are paid for by banner ads on the website, and the food is delivered through the United Nations.
In just fifteen minutes, I donated six bowls of rice!
The constitution should be allowed to be reinterpreted to fit our legal needs. I mean, if ritual slayings were considered acceptable in 1786 (I know they weren't but pretend), and they put an amendment in there saying anyone can do anything, anything at all for their religion, wouldn't that require some reinterpretation? I thought so.
And also, Jeremy, I went on the website, I've donated 100 grains and counting! I hope to give 1000. Does anyone doubt I can?
I donated 1000 grains!
I think that the Constitution should be seen as a living constitution. There are so many issues and controversies that the Constitution does not address in a clear way. Abortion is a highly discussed issue that was not addressed in the Constitution, and it is a demanding and modern problem. Another problem is the U.S. Citizen's right to privacy.The Constitution could not have possibly anticipated modern subjects such as abortions or phones or the internet. The Constitution should be generally loose when we are interpreting it's meaning.
I think the government should iterperet the Constitution as a living document because this summer we found out in the
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, and in the
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, we found out that when we interpereted the Constitution strictly...
IT TOOK US BACK A STEP IN INTEGRATION!!!
The Constitution was written flexibly, allowing change and interpretation for the reason that the authors could not have foreseen every issue that came up and will come up. Therefore, the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution loosely, fitting the words with current issues and situations, expecting change with circumstance. If the Constitution were interpreted literally, word for word, we would be faced with a multitude of problems, as our laws would be fitting that of the early 1800s rather than the 21st century. Once again, I believe that we should loosely interpret our constitution.
Charlie J.
It's a surprise to me that there's even a debate on this... No offense to the originalists but if the constitution was like any other legal statute or contract our country would never progress and would be unable to correct any mistakes. If America made a new constitution right now there still might be new problems 200 years from now also. To progress and learn the human race must always allow room for corrections and a little "wiggle room"
I went to FreeRice.com and donated 1000 grains of rice in 11 minutes. I hope it's not a scam.
C.J.
I am becoming obsessed with FreeRice, I know, but I think this would be great to try in class, working with prefixes and suffixes and roots. Just an idea, but a pretty good one, I hope.
Charlie J.
I just went on free rice too and donated 1500. It's addicting and for a good cause.
The Constitution should 'live' to an extent, but it's also important to bear in mind that this is the document that the country lives by, and shouldn't simply be rewritten on a whim. Everyone in the country has different ideas, different opinions, and we certainly can't all agree; to rewrite bits of the Constitution simply because *we* think it's right is irresponsible. Having an equal panel of judges who like to stick to their roots in terms of Constitutional amendments and judges who are progressive is important so that we may come to a fitting compromise between the two. Both sides need to be considered when amending the document that rules our country: we need an equal mix of old, and new.
I think that the constitution has to be interpreted as a living document, otherwise we won't be able to adopt to modern times, and our country will crash and burn.
I think that the constitution has to be interpreted as a living document, otherwise we won't be able to adopt to current times, and our country will crash and burn.
The Constitution can, and should, be interpreted. It was made a long time ago (1777) and many things changed since then, like WWW came, and with that new privacy issues. If the Constitution is not interpreted to today's standards, no one will understand it, except for a handful of "special" people. The Constitution can't be changed a lot, so the interpretation of it must change.
Danny I.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Possibly the most profound thing about the Constitution is that even though it was written so long ago, it is still very relevent today. However, circumstances are rapidly changing and that means that interpreting this document is becoming more important. Seeing the Constitution as a living document doesn't mean changing the beliefs that our country was founded on, but instead means that we can infer what would be inline with it on subjects such as education, etc. Also, I would like to point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it is not up for interpretation and it is hard to believe that this important detail was "forgotten." It is my opinion that the Constitution is not merely about laws, but it is more importantly a place to show the fundamental concepts that our nation holds important.
~ Joyce
Post a Comment
<< Home