Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Government originalism OR non-Originalism
Non-Original Interpretation of the Constitution
A substantial amount of debate has occurred in recent times regarding questions of legislation and the interpretation of the constitution. The two primary factions in this debate are that of the originalists, which are largely in favor of a literal interpretation of the constitution and the intention of its founding authors, and that of non-originalists, which are more likely to consider the outcome of such a literal interpretation while recognizing other factors, such as precedent setting (via the judicial branch of government) and conceptions of universal law. Although there are logical reasons to favor arguments propounded by both factions, a thoroughly analysis of the pertinent issues at stake allows one to see that the non-originalist perspective is the one best adapted to suit a contemporary American society.
One of the most eminent arguments of those in favor of originalism is that legislation...
Originalists strive to justify contemporary legislation in terms and intentions that determined by the original authors of the constitution. Although it is commendable to have a basis for legislation in this or any other country, proponents for both sides of the debate between originalists and non-originalists must maintain an awareness that the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and that the world as it was envisioned and written about in that document has changed drastically. During the time between the writing of the Constitution and the present day, numerous changes have occurred in the way American society functions. One of the most principle changes is in regards to the status of minorities and African-Americans in particular. Judging by the original writing of the Constitution, slaves were only three-fifths of a human being. Therefore, the…
Works Cited
Linder, Doug. "Theories of Constitutional Interpretation." Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. 2012. Web. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
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
role of government in the current debates surrounding the enactment of universal healthcare and the illicit drug war along the Mexican border, it is critical to look to the powers granted by the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution has always meant different things to different people throughout American history. As any law student will tell you, one of the major conflicts surrounding the Constitution is the concept of Originalism. This
U.S. Constitution: Discussion Questions A) The Fourteenth Amendment: the Case of Whitney V. California 274 U.S. 357 Whitney V. California (No. 3) Argued: October 6, 1925 Decided: May 16, 1927 453 Affirmed Location: Socialist Convention at Loring Hall Factual Analysis: Anita Charlotte Whitney, who subscribed to the CLPC (Communist Labor Party of California), found herself was arraigned for breaching the state's 'Criminal Syndicalism Act', which forbade any actions aiding or advocating crime commission, including "terrorism as a means
Gun Control in the United States: A persuasive argument in favor of gun control The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This brief statement has proven to be one of the most controversial sentences ever codified into law, perhaps because the situation which inspired it
District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) represents the U.S. Supreme Court's single biggest intervention in Second Amendment jurisprudence. The case was one which had been deliberately manufactured by a small cadre of ideologues: the case was organized and funded from the first by Robert Levy, a Senior Fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute. In 2010, Levy would address his own achievements in getting
History Of the Western Law Meaning - in legal terms - for nations to "stay the hand of vengeance" Justice Robert Jackson, while delivering his opening speech in November 1945 during the infamous Nuremberg trials for war offenses, enjoined the leaders of the Allied forces to "stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law" (Bass, 424). According to Jackson, doing this would be