Supreme Court: Interpreting The Constitution

The interpretation of the US Constitution by the Supreme Court is a highly debated topic. While some argue that the Court's interpretations are guided by the text of the Constitution and historical context, others suggest that the Court's decisions are influenced by judicial precedent, pragmatism, and the personal values of the justices. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows it to review the constitutionality of governmental actions, and its interpretations have significantly shaped constitutional law. The interpretive styles of justices, such as originalism or progressivism, also play a role in their decision-making. The debate revolves around whether the Supreme Court's interpretations should primarily adhere to the Constitution's text or adapt to contemporary contexts.

Explore related products

Methods of Interpretation: How the Supreme Court Reads the Constitution

$121 $165

The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and the Supreme Court

$31.96 $39.95

Interpretation of the Supreme Court judicial interpretation - Interpretation of the Supreme Court judicial interpretation. guiding case (Comprehensive Volume)(Chinese Edition)

$37.3

Hypotheticals: Supreme Court Decision-Making and Constitutional Interpretation

$56.41 $74.6

Supreme Court, The (Student Guides to American Government and Politics)

$15.79 $29.95

Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton Studies in American Politics)

$28.01 $45

Originalism vs. Progressivism

Originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning or the original intent of its drafters. Originalists argue that this approach removes politics from judging and provides an objective and neutral method for interpreting the Constitution. The theory gained prominence in the 1980s as a reaction to the "Living Constitution" theory, which called for judges to interpret the Constitution according to evolving societal standards. Originalism has been criticised for its selective application and for providing cover for a right-wing political agenda.

Progressivism, in the context of constitutional interpretation, aligns more with the "Living Constitution" theory. Progressives believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of evolving attitudes, values, and conditions. They argue that the Constitution was written with broad and vague provisions to allow for future generations to interpret it within the context of their time. Progressives criticise originalism for being out of touch with modern life and for imposing a static interpretation on a document intended to be dynamic.

The debate between originalism and progressivism has divided the American public and the legal community. Originalists argue that interpreting the Constitution through the lens of original meaning ensures that the document's interpretation is not influenced by the personal values of judges. They see originalism as a way to uphold the intentions of the Founding Fathers and to prevent judicial activism.

On the other hand, progressives argue that originalism is a selective interpretation used to further a conservative agenda. They point out that the Founding Fathers themselves did not have a collective intent, and that attempting to ascertain their intentions is arrogant and inaccurate. Progressives believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that respects and advances the goals of freedom, dignity, and democracy in a changing country.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in the originalism vs. progressivism debate. While some Supreme Court justices describe themselves as originalists, others criticise the approach. The Court's rulings on abortion, guns, voting rights, and other issues have been influenced by originalism, leading to concerns about the impact of this ideology on American life.

In conclusion, originalism and progressivism represent two opposing approaches to constitutional interpretation. Originalism emphasises the static meaning of the Constitution, while progressivism advocates for an interpretation that evolves with societal changes. The debate between these two schools of thought has significant implications for how the Constitution is applied in practice and continues to shape American politics and law.

Judicial precedent

The use of judicial precedent allows for consistency and stability in the law, ensuring that similar cases are treated similarly and providing predictability in the legal system. It also reflects the idea that the law should evolve and adapt to changing circumstances and societal values. Judicial precedent allows the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in a way that is relevant to modern times and fills in gaps or addresses ambiguities in the text of the Constitution.

However, the reliance on judicial precedent has been criticised for potentially ignoring the original meaning of the Constitution and the intentions of its framers. Some argue that the Supreme Court should adhere strictly to the text of the Constitution rather than relying on its own interpretations. This debate centres around the question of whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a static document or a living document that can adapt to changing circumstances.

In practice, the Supreme Court often employs a pragmatist approach to interpreting the Constitution. This involves weighing the practical consequences of different interpretations and selecting the one that is perceived to lead to the best outcome for society or the political branches. This pragmatist approach allows the Court to consider the impact of its decisions and play a constructive role in deciding questions of constitutional law.

In conclusion, judicial precedent plays a significant role in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. While prior decisions are influential, the Court also considers other factors, such as the original meaning of the text, societal impact, and constructive role, in its interpretation and application of constitutional law.

Pragmatism

The pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation considers the potential impact of different interpretations on society and the political branches. This involves evaluating the future costs and benefits of each interpretation and choosing the one that is expected to yield the most favourable results. This method of interpretation is particularly relevant when the text of the Constitution does not provide a clear answer or when dealing with complex issues related to modern governance.

Judge Richard Posner, a prominent legal scholar, has expressed a pragmatic view of constitutional interpretation. He stated that when deciding cases, he focuses on finding sensible solutions that respect general guidelines, such as freedom of speech and religion, rather than strictly adhering to the text of the Constitution. Posner's remarks sparked controversy, as some scholars disagreed with the idea of judges "ignoring" constitutional text.

However, it is important to note that the interpretation of the Constitution is a complex and evolving process. While pragmatism is one approach, other methods include textualism, which emphasises the plain meaning of the text and the context in which the terms appear, and judicial precedent, where the Supreme Court's prior decisions on constitutional law guide future cases with similar facts. The interpretation styles of justices also vary, with some described as originalist and others as progressive, which can influence their decision-making process.

In conclusion, pragmatism in the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court involves weighing practical consequences and selecting interpretations that are expected to lead to the best outcomes. This approach balances doctrinal details with sensible solutions, considering the potential impact on society and the political branches. While it has sparked debate, pragmatism is one of several methods used by the Court to interpret the Constitution and guide their decisions.

Explore related products

Not Quite Supreme: The Courts and Coordinate Constitutional Interpretation

$28.45 $34.95

Interpretation of the Supreme Court judicial interpretation - Interpretation of the Supreme Court judicial interpretation. guiding case (Shoji volume sets upper and lower volumes)(Chinese Edition)

$55

Precedent in the United States Supreme Court (Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, 33)

$87.91 $109.99

Reinterpreting the Constitution: How the Supreme Court Changes the Law

$105 $105

The Supreme Court and The Constitution: Readings in American Constitutional History

$51.59

The Supreme Court's Federal Tax Jurisprudence, Second Edition

$155

Textualism

The word "textualism" was first used by Mark Pattison in 1863 to criticise Puritan theology, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Justice Robert Jackson was the first to use the word "textualism" in a Supreme Court opinion a century later in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered one of the most controversial justices to have been on the United States Supreme Court. He was a vocal advocate of textualist interpretation, arguing that textualism is the only acceptable form of constitutional interpretation.

However, some critics argue that Scalia did not clearly define his textualism and that he did not always rely upon textualism to the exclusion of other interpretive means. Catherine Langford, in her book "Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation", examines Scalia's constitutional philosophy of original meaning and textualism. She concludes that his textualism was not consistently applied and did not offer sufficient justification for his opinions. Langford's charge of inconsistency rests, in part, on the pragmatic, evolving dimensions of Scalia's jurisprudence.

Strict constructionism

Strict constructionists embrace an approach to constitutional interpretation that resembles what is known today as originalism. An example of this approach is Thomas Jefferson's opinion arguing against the constitutionality of a national bank. Because the vagueness of Article I lent itself to broad interpretations, strict constructionists turned to the somewhat restrained descriptions of the powers of Congress offered by advocates of the Constitution during ratification.

The term strict constructionism has been used in American politics by members of the Democratic-Republican Party and Democrats during the antebellum period. They argued that the powers of the federal government listed in Article I should be strictly construed to ensure that the bulk of governmental power would remain with the states.

Few judges self-identify as strict constructionists due to the narrow meaning of the term. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a major proponent of textualism, rejected strict constructionism, saying that "no one ought to be" a strict constructionist because the most literal interpretation of a text can conflict with the commonly understood or original meaning. Similarly, many of the original framers of the Constitution, such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams, took broad interpretations of the powers afforded to the federal government.

Despite the controversy surrounding strict constructionism, it has been a topic of discussion among politicians and scholars. During his campaign in 2000, George W. Bush promised to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court. Republican presidents that followed, including Donald Trump, and nominee John McCain, have also promised to nominate strict constructionist judges to the courts.

Frequently asked questions