How To Interpret Supreme Court Decisions

This deliberate ambiguity allows for flexibility and adaptation over time but also invites conflicting interpretations. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation, frequently faces contentious issues where the original intent of the framers is subject to different understandings and perspectives. Finally, the framers established a deliberate and rigorous amendment process for the Constitution. This process requires a supermajority of states or Congress to pass amendments, making it intentionally difficult to make fundamental changes to the Constitution. This deliberate high threshold for amendments ensures that any proposed changes must overcome significant opposition, leading to tensions and conflicts between those advocating for change and those seeking to preserve the existing

I disagree that the “Living Constitution” will destroy it because society changes and the laws that govern it need to change also. I think that Scalia was stuck in an outdated mindset of viewing the constitution. I agree with you that Breyer 's argument was the better of the two, and I agree that the interpretation of the constitution should be flexible and not be fixed.

First, it does not always reflect the will of the people. Since it is the people who elect the Congress and the President, I believe their will should prevail. The Supreme Court should obey the will of the people rather than relying on interpretation of the constitution. Also, Judicial Review may cause a president or Congress to delay some activity or law until they get an opinion from legal advisers as to the constitutionality of the action or law, (Clinton, 1989). This might affect solving some essential matters of urgency lest the Supreme Court rules against it

Another mistake made by Dr. Scott is his statement on interpretation. Dr. Scott says, "If Congress amends the Constitution, the Supreme Court has to interpret what the new amendment says. " Professor West stresses that this is not true. In many cases, there is nothing to "interpret," the Constitution is very clear in its meaning. A big debate was on the saying "trade among the states" or "trade in the states.

In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan).

Textualism, as Antonin Scalia describes it, is inconsistent in its nature. While he first claims that a good textualist would never interpret the law with the legislator’s intent in mind, Scalia later violates his own convictions by allowing for corrections of Scrivener’s errors. In principle, correcting Scrivener’s errors requires the judge to think about what the original writer meant to say with the statute, not the literal meaning of the text. This may mean adding a single additional word to the statute, but something as deceptively simple as one word could have drastic effects on the meaning of the law. Therefore, Scalia cannot claim to account for Scrivener’s errors while also chastising methods of interpretation that consider what the

He touches on his previous idea of separating himself from the government, stating that he has a solemn oath to protect it, while maintaining that the government is not the enemy and will not be the aggressor. Even the themes in the last paragraph harken back to an earlier time of unity and enforce Lincolns claim as the embodiment of the founders vision. The mystic chords of memory are remarkably similar to Madison’s many cords of affection the connect all American’s together, and the structure of the argument is nearly identical (Hubbel, 1931, p. 551). It’s with this final plea that Lincoln finishes his speech, and can only hope that it was enough to prevent a catastrophic loss of

Lincoln went on to say in his address: “Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others”. Abraham Lincoln may not have addressed the Declaration of Independence in his Lyceum Address but in referring to the laws and to the U.S. Constitution, he explains that without following these laws the Declaration of Independence was for nothing and means

Though Lincoln did not have a side on the argument of the equal treatment

President Lincoln had to make the best decision for the country, even if he did not satisfy the interests of both groups. Presidents should not appeal to majorities nor minorities, but overall, make the best decision for the country as seen with George Washington, as well as Abraham Lincoln. Each knew what was best in the end and that is what made him a great leader. If the government continues to apply filters of consent, prevent majority factions, and let the president make their own verdicts for the country, we will all be better

Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

His work penetrates American life daily. The laws put in place by President Lincoln before and after the Civil War have, impact the interpretation of laws in today’s courts. Fundamental American ideals was expanded and redefined by his very words: “Nowhere in the world is presented a government of so much liberty and equality. To the humblest and poorest amongst us are held out the highest privileges and positions. The present moment finds me at the White House, yet there is as good a chance for your children as there was for my father's.”

Lincoln goes all the way back to the Founding Father’s own legislative records to counteract Douglas’s assertion that