Essay On Constitutional Interpretation

There have always been disagreements on how a country should be managed. That is why the Federalists and Anti-Federalists made a system to keep others in check and established the Constitution. Over the years many people have interpreted the Constitution in numerous ways, that is why there are two main groups, the originalists, and the living constitutionalists, who examine and give their depiction of it. Through researching from two different perspectives, by David Strauss and Justice Antonin Scalia, an argument for which interpretation is better. Although, the idea that following a strict and fundamental understanding is important, it is better to look at the Constitution in a modern way and allow values to play into effect.

The first argument is given by living constitutionalist, David Strauss, who organized and wrote an article on how the Constitution should be interpreted from a change in value over time in our society. From Strauss’s point of view, the Constitution is, “both living, adapting, and changing and, simultaneously, invincible stable” (David A. Strauss, The University of Chicago the law school.). Strauss sees the importance of a stable Constitution, however, he explains that there is room for change within it, because the Constitution is considered living and needs to meet the standards of modern society. Through Strauss’s article, the reader can perceive that people’s voices matter when it comes to how the Constitution is interpreted. Although, a judge is meant to still rely upon past court decisions to aid their decisions. This concept is important, as it allows the people’s values to hold a significant meaning.

Furthermore, people realize that the world has changed and will continue to grow and adapt to fit our population. This makes it to where the Constitution would inevitably change too. If there was no change or progress, then it would prevent our society from functioning. There is a method that the judicial branch has established over the years, that ensures that the Constitution fits accordingly to society. This method is the common law that is, “built out of precedents and traditions that accumulate over time.” (David A. Strauss, The University of Chicago the law school.). There are limitations to how much change the Constitution will acquire over time, however, it will never exceed past the foundational, text of the Constitution, without properly amending it. The common law protects those fundamental principles established when the Constitution was.

In contrast to the living constitutionalists’ argument, Justice Antonin Scalia represents the originalist’s perspective. Even though there is significance in changing the Constitution to meet the people’s values, the original interpretation of the Constitution is important. Through analyzing “Constitutional Interpretation of the Old Fashioned Way” by Justice Scalia, a judge must only amend the Constitution if necessary and should not go beyond the precision displayed in the Constitution. In our discussions, we analyzed how a judge going beyond the precise words of what the Framers intended would be considered a form of “judicial activism”. This method is when the judge tries to act legislatively, instead of judicial. Originalists see this method as a crucial act against the framers because a judge should “give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.” (Scalia, Constitutional interpretation Scalia - Boston College).  This allows the Constitution to still be held at a strict, objective, and fair view.

In conclusion, there are several ways to interpret the Constitution. The two main views are the originalists and living constitutionalists, these two perspectives were analyzed by Justice Scalia and David Strauss. Establishing and understanding these two arguments are necessary to keep the judicial branch in check and ensure that the people’s voice is heard. The originalist’s values are important as it makes sure the judicial branch does not exceed their expressed powers in the Constitution. However, the living constitutionalists organized a more influential practice to protect the people’s rights of today and fit the Constitution in society, rather than be a historian.