Constitutional originalism: principles, interpretations, and judicial applications

Constitutional Originalism

A living constitution is a concept that is found in the United States, it is also referred to as loose constitution. This is because it is a constitutional interpretation that the constitution is dynamic in meaning. It claims that the constitution has human properties since it constantly changes .I hold a strong opinion for the constitution to be interpreted as a living constitution due to several reasons. The idea of a living constitution is often associated with the views that a society which is contemporaneous should be factored in when key constitution phrases are being interpreted.

My argument is based on several issues one, interpreting the constitution according to the outdated views is not acceptable as a matter of policy. It is very necessary for the constitution to be interpreted from an evolving perspective. Secondly the people who wrote the constitution originally wrote it in terms that are broad and flexible that led to creation of a dynamic living document. A living constitution is just a characteristic and not a specific mode of interpreting the constitution. It is associated with a number of non-originalist theories that interpret it. Among the common associations of a living constitution is the judicial pragmatism (Straus, 2010). According to this pragmatism view the constitution ought to be taken as undergoing evolution over time as a factor of necessity in the society. When looking at the original meaning of the constitution whose intention was majorly to allow major practices that are condemned universally in the world today, there is enough reason to reject pure originalism. This fact instead supports the living constitution.

The constitution should be seen as a living document since the society is undergoing many changes. For instance the requirements in the constitution fort equal rights should be read and interpreted considering the standards of equality that currently exist. They should not be according to those found in many decades ago since they would not be accepted. This calls for interpretation of the constitution according to the current state of living which can only be given by a living constitution. The constitution was originally written in a flexible and broad way that could accommodate the changes that could come over time such as technological and social changes. Therefore, the original intention of the writers of the constitution was to come up with a document that could undergo changes over time depending on the needs of the society at that time.

The world has changed in so many ways, there has been growth of territories by nations and population has increased .there has been a change in technology as social norms. All these changes are too great to have bee foreseen in the initial constitution drafts that were written. It is therefore not very realistic to go through cumbersome amendment processes for the incorporation of these changes. Therefore, the living constitution is the only solution to these changes which does not entail a long and cumbersome process but simple interpretation of the constitution to cover the changes (Strauss, 2010).

The living constitution can be easily applied an example of an application of the living constitution can be seen in the reference by the Supreme court to standards of decency that are evolving. For example the 1985 case in the Supreme court of Trop vs. Dulles. The words of the eight amendment are not definite and they do not have a static scope. The amendment ought to draw meaning from the standards of decency that are constantly under evolution which mark are an indication of a society that is maturing. The court reference in Trop was on the eighth amendment prohibiting punishment that is cruel and unusual. The concept that is underlying which is the constitution is written in such a way that the interpretation made by the court of these terms should be a reflection of the societal conditions that prevail. This is the center of the living constitution doctrine.