Modern vs Original Judicial Interpretation

In Ch.14 of the book, the author talks about the Supreme Court and its purpose as the final court which any case comes to if it could not be decided in prior courts. The basis of their decisions comes from the Justices interpretations of laws, statutes, and documents like the Constitution. Even in 2018, some of the biggest court cases and decisions which come out of the courts have to be decided by documents written over 230 years ago. As a result, there is mix feelings regarding if the Supreme Court should use the Constitution as it was intended for in 1787 or how it should be interpreted today.

In recent research conducted by the Pew Research Center, they have found that different political ideologies as well as various demographics can determine if people think the Supreme Court should use a more modern or classical interpretation of the constitution. In terms of political ideology, the results of the study are very predictable. Conservatives tend to think the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written and Liberals believe the Constitution should be interpreted with a more modern twist. Furthermore, younger people believe that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution as a more modern document.

Even the courts have had their fair share of Justices who believe the Constitution is a living document and those who believe it should be kept to its original meaning. For example, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has a more liberal take on the constitution while the late Justice Antonin Scalia had one of the most conservative interpretation of the constitution. However, given the fact that the younger generation is becoming more liberal, it will be interesting to see if some of the future appointed Supreme Court Justices have a more modern take on Constitutional Interpretation.

Justice Sotomayor on Constitution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHvgiEWH6A4

Justice Scalia on Constitution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=472&v=FemnnILNs4U

To conclude, I do not think there is a clear right or wrong answer on how the courts should interpret the constitution. Even the Supreme Court Justices have different views on how the Constitution should be viewed. If the top law deciders in the U.S. have not come to a consensus on how the courts should interpret documents like the Constitution, then there is no right or wrong answer regarding judicial interpretation.

Sources:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/americans-remain-divided-on-how-the-supreme-court-should-interpret-the-constitution/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/opinion/justice-antonin-scalia-and-the-dead-constitution.html

2 Responses to "Modern vs Original Judicial Interpretation"

Kelly Gough says:

April 22, 2018 at 12:26 pm

Holden,

Thank you for the interesting post about the modern vs original judicial interpretation. The post was very insightful and had a lot of great points.

Your point about the constitution and its role in the Supreme Court is very interesting. Considering the document, as you pointed out, was written over 230 years ago it is hard to believe it could still be appropriate for court cases in today’s society. Considering when it was written, slavery was legal, women could not vote, and many other strides the United States have made in equality were not effective.

Personally, I believe institutions need to constantly evolve in order to remain relevant and fair. The Supreme Court should not rely heavily on the constitution or other such documents to make important judicial decisions. I found the data from Pew research to be right on par with my own beliefs for this issue. Thank you for including such relevant data to the post.

It is also interesting that Justices have such extreme views on this topic and are so divisive in their conclusions.
Haley Overlander says:

April 23, 2018 at 5:38 pm

Holden,

Thank you very much for your post. I think it is really interesting today to decipher how our nation should be interpreting the Constitution. However, interpretation lies within one’s personal perspective. For example, whether someone is an originalist or a modernist, or whether someone is a Republican or a Democrat. According to author and theologian Byron Williams, of the Huffington Post, an originalist “generally [understands] that the Constitution should be interpreted as the framers intended… such interpretations are allegedly based on a fundamentalist reading of the Constitution along with other key documents of the period, such as the Federalist Papers” (Williams). In such a developing modern society that faces new challenges every day, how can we strictly abide by the laws made by a few old, privileged white men from the 18th century?

I am not saying that the Constitution does not offer some sound principles on how to govern a democratic society and the basic rights of an American citizen, but I am saying that since the founding of the Constitution, our society has drastically changed. When one understands how different our society is than how it was in the 18th century, then should we not frame the ideas of the Constitution into the perspective of today’s modernity? According to Williams, “the Constitution must be a living document if it is to represent those living today…the flaw in its inception would be its original intent excluded so many people…with all we know, why would anyone advocate that we revert to that?” (Williams).

On the contrary, when we look at former associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, a strong conservative, we can see how he views the Constitution in its original text. During his speech titled “Interpreting the Constitution: A View from the High Court,” Scalia stated “The Constitution is not a living organism…It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say” (Associated Press). These two opposing views from Williams and Scalia represent the two great opposing views of the liberal and the conservative on the perspective of how the Constitution should be interpreted.

Personally, I believe that every case should be taken on its own and the Constitution should apply as flexible to the modernity of our society. Overall, there is no universal consensus among the High Court that reflects the general opinion of how the Constitution should be interpreted. I believe, however, that with time and with changing society, especially with the “right to bear arms” in our society today, that the Constitution will have to be amended for the sake of our modernizing society and technology.

Citations:

Williams, Byron. “Constitution Is Clearly a Living Document.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 June 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/same-sex-marriage-constitution_b_1429064.html.

Associated Press. “Justice Scalia: ‘Constitution Is Not a Living Organism’.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 15 Mar. 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/15/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-living-organism.html.

Comments are closed.