Simone Lawson
There are differing views on how the US Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution. The primary styles identified are original intent, textualism, and viewing the Constitution as a living document. Textualism is a strict constructionist approach that interprets the Constitution according to the literal meaning of its text. This approach is criticised for its inflexibility, as it binds the Court to the original meaning of the text. Critics argue that this may hinder the preservation of fundamental constitutional rights. Proponents of textualism argue that it promotes democratic values and prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal views. Other originalist interpretation styles include strict construction and formalism. Justices with a living document or progressive constitutional interpretation style are more likely to vote in favour of the individual than original intent justices.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Interpretation style | Originalist or progressive |
| Originalist styles | Original intent, textualism, and strict constructionism |
| Original intent | Framers' intentions should be considered and respected |
| Textualism | Relationships between words and commonly understood meanings at the time of writing and in the present day |
| Strict constructionism | A narrower form of textualism; limits interpretation to the clauses enumerated in the Constitution |
| Progressive styles | Living document, pragmatism, precedent/stare decisis, moral reasoning, and historical/genealogical interpretation |
| Living document | The Constitution is a living document that should evolve with society |
| Pragmatism | Interpreted in light of practical consequences |
| Precedent/stare decisis | Emphasizes the importance of precedent in legal decision-making |
| Moral reasoning | Judges should consider values not specifically set forth in the text |
| Historical/genealogical interpretation | The meaning of the text is informed by historical practices |
Explore related products
Original Intent
Strict constructionism, on the other hand, is a narrower form of textualism. This style limits constitutional interpretation to the clauses enumerated in the Constitution. It posits that the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as it is written, eliminating subjectivity in interpretation. This method treats the Constitution as an anchor to settle societal disputes, providing for consistent opinions and adding credibility to the Supreme Court. This approach includes originalism, textualism, and structuralism. It stands in contrast to the "living document" approach inherent in pragmatism, precedent/stare decisis, moral reasoning, and historical/genealogical interpretation.
Critics of strict reliance solely on the text in interpreting the Constitution argue that judges and other interpreters may ascribe different meanings to the text depending on their background. They argue that judges should consider values not specifically set forth in the text, such as those based on moral reasoning, practical consequences, structural relationships, or other considerations. Proponents of textualism, on the other hand, argue that it prevents judges from deciding cases in accordance with their personal policy views, leading to more predictable judgments. They also argue that textualism promotes democratic values because it adheres to the words of the Constitution adopted by the people.
Judicial Review: A Constitutional Check or a Weak Link?
You may want to see also
Textualism
Proponents of textualism argue that it promotes democratic values by adhering to the words of the Constitution as adopted by the people. They believe that textualism prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal policy views, leading to more predictable judgments. Textualism also rejects judicial rewriting of legislation, even when constitutional doubts arise, as it respects the legislative will.
However, textualism has its critics. Opponents argue that a strict reliance solely on the text may lead to different interpretations depending on the judges' backgrounds. They contend that judges should consider values not explicitly stated in the text, such as moral reasoning, practical consequences, and structural relationships. Critics also suggest that a more flexible approach is necessary to preserve fundamental constitutional rights and guarantees, rather than being bound by words written centuries ago.
God and the State: Is "In God We Trust" Unconstitutional?
You may want to see also
Strict constructionism
Textualism, which is similar to strict constructionism, relies on the text of the Constitution itself and the relationships between words and their commonly understood meanings when the Constitution was written and in the present day. Textualism was made famous by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Critics of strict textualism argue that it prevents judges from considering the practical consequences, structural relationships, and moral reasoning behind the text. They also argue that textualism does not allow judges to adapt to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.
Supporters of strict constructionism argue that it prevents judges from deciding cases in accordance with their personal policy views, leading to more predictability in judgments. They also argue that it promotes democratic values because it adheres to the words of the Constitution adopted by the people, rather than what individual justices think or believe.
Ohio Clubs: Constitutions Needed?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Pragmatism
The interpretation of the Constitution as a living document is inherently subjective. This subjectivity may lead to the perception that decisions reflect individual justices' political views rather than objective interpretations of the Constitution. However, pragmatism allows for a more flexible approach that is not bound by the words written centuries ago. This flexibility is necessary to ensure the preservation of fundamental constitutional rights or guarantees.
Opponents of strict constitutional interpretation, or textualism, argue that it prevents judges from considering values not explicitly stated in the text, such as moral reasoning, practical consequences, structural relationships, or other considerations. They suggest that judges may ascribe different meanings to the text depending on their backgrounds, especially when the provisions are broadly worded or fail to address fundamental constitutional questions.
Proponents of textualism counter that it promotes predictability in judgments and prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal policy views. Textualism also adheres to the words of the Constitution as adopted by the people, upholding democratic values. However, critics argue that strict adherence to precedent may perpetuate erroneous constructions of the Constitution, and that altering such precedents would require amending the Constitution, which is challenging.
Foundations of Freedom: Constitution vs Tyranny
You may want to see also
Moral reasoning
The use of moral reasoning in constitutional interpretation is a topic of debate. Critics argue that courts should not act as "moral arbiters", as ethical arguments are based on principles that are not objectively verifiable. They further argue that judges may be ill-equipped to discern established moral principles and may end up deciding cases according to their own policy views.
On the other hand, proponents of using moral reasoning contend that it allows judges to incorporate contemporary values and be more flexible when interpreting the Constitution. They argue that the Framers designed the Constitution to grow and change over time, and that moral principles underlie much of the text of the Constitution. For example, the Court has derived general moral principles from the broad language of the Fourteenth Amendment in cases involving individual rights.
Textualism, another approach to constitutional interpretation, focuses solely on the objectively understood meaning of the text, independent of ideology and politics. Proponents of textualism argue that it prevents judges from deciding cases based on their personal views, leading to more predictable judgments. They also believe that textualism promotes democratic values by adhering to the words of the Constitution as adopted by the people.
However, critics of strict textualism argue that it fails to address fundamental constitutional questions and does not allow judges to consider values not explicitly mentioned in the text. They suggest that a more flexible approach may be necessary to preserve fundamental values.
In practice, the Court often combines textualism with other modes of interpretation, such as moral reasoning and historical practices, to resolve ambiguities or answer questions not addressed in the text. For example, in Trop v. Dulles, the Court first looked at the text of the Eighth Amendment before turning to other modes of interpretation to decide the case.
Social Contract: Preamble's Core Mention for a Reason
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Strict constitutional interpretation, also known as strict constructionism, is an originalist interpretation style that posits that the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as written, eliminating subjectivity in interpretation. This method treats the Constitution as a hard anchor to settle societal disputes as to laws, providing for consistent opinions and adding credibility to the Supreme Court.
Proponents of strict constitutional interpretation argue that it prevents judges from deciding cases in accordance with their personal policy views, leading to more predictability in judgments. They also argue that it promotes democratic values because it adheres to the words of the Constitution adopted by the people.
Opponents of strict constitutional interpretation suggest that judges and other interpreters may ascribe different meanings to the text depending on their background. They argue that judges should consider values not specifically set forth in the text, such as those based on moral reasoning, practical consequences, and structural relationships.
