Malcolm Rivera
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and its nine justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They play a crucial role in the constitutional system of government, including judicial review, or the ability to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution. There are several methods of constitutional interpretation used by the justices, including textualism, originalism, progressive, and living document. Textualism focuses on the plain meaning of the text, while originalism considers the meaning as understood by the populace at the time of the Founding. Interpretations of the Constitution can vary, and justices may be influenced by their political values and personal views.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Interpretation styles | Original intent, textualism, other originalist, progressive, and living document |
| Ideology | Liberal, conservative |
| Prosecutorial experience | Yes, No |
| Interpretation approach | Textualist, originalist, progressive, living document |
| Decision-making | Based on attitudes, interpretation of the Constitution, and constitutional text |
| Constitutional interpretation | Original meaning, judicial precedent |
| Judicial review | Power to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution |
| Appointment | Appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate |
| Tenure | Appointed for life |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Original Intent
Alexander Hamilton, who signed the Constitution on behalf of New York, believed that the text should control its interpretation. In his view, the Constitution was self-evident and there was no need to ascertain the intent of its framers. Thomas Jefferson advocated for another method of constitutional interpretation: the rule of strict constructionism. He asserted that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were grounded in the principle embodied in the Tenth Amendment, which states that all undelegated powers are reserved for the states or the people.
Massachusetts legislators believed that the new federal government would be impotent in matters of religion. They held one of two basic interpretations of what the constitutional framers intended regarding religion: the separationist and the accommodationist. The separationist interpretation suggests a strict separation between civil authority and religion. Although governmental authority should protect the "free exercise" of religion, no religious group should receive any form of governmental aid. The accommodationist view holds that the framers intended for the establishment clause to prevent the government from establishing a single religion over others.
Originalism, the theory of interpretation that Original Intent falls under, is usually contrasted with Living Constitutionalism. Living constitutionalists believe that the meaning of the constitutional text changes over time as social attitudes change, even without the adoption of a formal amendment. Originalists, on the other hand, believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning it had when it became law. They believe that the original meaning of constitutional texts can be discerned from dictionaries, grammar books, and other legal documents.
Dolley Madison's Influence on the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Textualism
Some critics argue that textualism can lead to absurd or unconstitutional results if a statute is interpreted literally. However, textualists respond that this can be avoided by adhering to judicial canons of interpretation, such as the constitutional avoidance canon. Proponents of textualism argue that it prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal policy views, leading to more predictable judgments. Textualism is also said to promote democratic values by adhering to the words of the Constitution as adopted by the people, rather than the individual beliefs of Justices.
Justices who are textualists include Antonin Scalia, Hugo Black, and Neil Gorsuch. While Justice Elena Kagan has stated that "we are all textualists now," she also expressed support for originalism, highlighting the complex and nuanced nature of constitutional interpretation.
Solemn Oath: Defending the Constitution
You may want to see also
Originalism
Jurist Robert Bork is often credited with proposing the first modern theory of originalism in his 1971 law review article, "Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems." Bork argued that without a specified interpretive framework, judges might impose their values when interpreting the Constitution. By adhering to the original meaning, Bork suggested that judges could avoid injecting their personal beliefs into their rulings.
Proponents of originalism, such as Antonin Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, have advocated for judicial restraint and the importance of interpreting the Constitution as it was understood by those who ratified it. They argue that certain aspects of the Constitution were intentionally broad and vague, allowing for future generations to interpret them within the original framework.
Critics of originalism, including Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, often point to the concept of a "Living Constitution." This competing theory asserts that the Constitution should evolve and be interpreted in the context of current times, reflecting changes in social attitudes and values. Living constitutionalists believe that the Supreme Court has the power to change and improve the Constitution through its decisions, as seen in cases like Brown v. Board of Education, where racial segregation was deemed unconstitutional.
The First Steps of Nations: Government Plans and Names
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Progressive
In the 1920s, progressive senators like Robert La Follette, William Borah, and Hiram Johnson of California were often at odds with the more conservative members of the Senate's Republican caucus. They proposed legislation that would require the support of at least seven of the nine justices on the Court to invalidate a statute.
Today, progressive Supreme Court justices are more likely to vote in favour of criminal justice reform, ending the death penalty, and defending women's reproductive rights. They also tend to support affirmative action programs and same-sex marriage, interpreting the Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection" as prohibiting state laws that forbid marriage equality.
In summary, progressive Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution as a living document that must be applied to the needs of modern society, voting in favour of individual rights and progressive reforms.
Executive Power: Why the Unmatched Authority?
You may want to see also
Living Document
The United States Constitution is often called the "supreme law of the land", and no law may contradict its principles. It is also flexible and allows for changes in the government. The Constitution is considered a "living document" because it can be amended to evolve, change, and adapt to new circumstances. The document has been amended only 27 times in over 200 years, and the amendment process is very difficult.
The concept of a "living document" is central to the idea of judicial pragmatism, or the viewpoint that the Constitution holds a dynamic meaning even without formal amendments. Proponents of this view argue that the Constitution should develop alongside society's needs, providing a more malleable tool for governments. They believe that the Constitution was written with broad and flexible terms to create a dynamic, "living" document. The pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable, and so an evolving interpretation is needed. For example, the constitutional requirement of equal rights should be interpreted in light of current standards of equality, not those of decades or centuries ago.
Opponents of the "living document" theory argue that the Constitution should only be changed through a formal amendment process. They believe that allowing judges to change the Constitution's meaning undermines democracy. Instead, they argue that legislative action, rather than judicial decisions, better represents the will of the people in a constitutional republic. This view is called originalism, which asserts that the constitutional provisions mean what the people who adopted them understood them to mean. Originalists believe that the commands issued when provisions became part of the Constitution are unequivocal obligations that must be followed.
Justices of the Supreme Court can be categorised into different interpretation styles, including original intent, textualism, other originalist, progressive, and living document. Justices who view the Constitution as a living document are expected to vote more often in favour of the individual.
The Constitution vs. Declaration: Which One Reigns Supreme?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Original intent, textualism, other originalist, progressive, and living document.
Textualism is a mode of interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text of a legal document. Textualism emphasises how the terms in the Constitution would have been understood by people at the time of ratification.
Originalism considers the meaning of the Constitution as understood by the populace at the time of the Founding. Originalists believe the Constitution's text had an "objectively identifiable" meaning at the time of the Founding that has not changed over time.
Interpretations of the Constitution are important in judicial decision-making. Originalists tend to vote in favour of the government, whereas progressive justices tend to vote in favour of the individual.
Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
