Simone Lawson
The interpretation of the constitution is a complex and nuanced topic, with two predominant approaches: strict interpretation and loose interpretation. While strict interpretation tends to be conservative and emphasizes retaining power at the state level, loose interpretation leans liberal and focuses on granting broad powers to the federal government. The constitution's vague nature allows for interpretive amendments by judges, as seen in cases like Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court made policy decisions, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. This flexibility enables the constitution to be a living document, adaptable to societal changes and evolving perspectives.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Nature of interpretation | Liberal |
| Nature of the government | Federal |
| Role of judges | To provide interpretive amendments |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Loose interpretation stresses federal government power
The US Constitution is a deliberately broad and vague document, allowing for different interpretations. A loose interpretation of the Constitution tends to stress the broad grants of power to the federal government and is associated with liberal political leanings. This is in contrast to a strict interpretation, which tends to be associated with conservative political leanings and stresses the retention of power by individual state governments.
The role of judges is to interpret the Constitution and provide 'interpretive amendments' when necessary. For example, in Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court essentially made policy, which is not their role. In this case, the Supreme Court's decision was that the Constitution implied a right to privacy, which included a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. This is an example of a loose interpretation of the Constitution, as it stressed federal government power over individual state power.
Another example of a loose interpretation is seen in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), where the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allowed for same-sex marriage. This decision was based on the interpretation that the Constitution guarantees certain unenumerated rights, including the right to marry regardless of sex. This interpretation expanded the power of the federal government by giving it a role in regulating marriage, which had traditionally been a matter for individual states.
The amendment procedure in the US Constitution is flawed and often does not work, which means that judges must sometimes interpret the Constitution in a way that allows for societal changes that cannot be accommodated within the original framework. For example, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), the Supreme Court initially ruled that an income tax was unconstitutional. However, this decision was later overturned by Congress passing the 16th Amendment, which gave the federal government the power to impose an income tax.
Originalists, or those who interpret the Constitution strictly, have been criticised for changing their views on what the founding fathers intended, indicating that they are uncertain about the original meaning of the document. This is evidenced by cases such as Stanford v. Kentucky, where the originalist interpretation allowed for the execution of 16-year-olds, a decision that was later overturned by Roper v. Simmons.
The Constitution's Draft: A Foundation of Democracy
You may want to see also
The constitution is a living document
A loose interpretation of the Constitution tends to be associated with a liberal perspective. This approach emphasizes the broad grants of power to the federal government, often resulting in a more centralized authority. In contrast, strict constructionists interpret the Constitution literally and conservatively, aiming to retain power at the state level and often leading to a more decentralized governance structure.
The role of judges is crucial in interpreting the Constitution. While their primary role is to interpret the law rather than create policy, judges often provide "interpretive amendments" when the amendment procedure fails or is inadequate, as seen in Roe v. Wade. However, judges must be cautious not to overstep their bounds and stray too far into politics. In cases like Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), the Supreme Court's decision was later overturned by Congress, demonstrating the delicate balance between judicial interpretation and legislative authority.
The evolution of interpretations over time is evident in cases like Stanford v. Kentucky, where the original interpretation allowed for the execution of sixteen-year-olds. However, this interpretation was later overturned in Roper v. Simons, reflecting a shift in societal values and the understanding of juvenile justice. This example highlights how the living document nature of the Constitution allows for adaptations to align with contemporary societal norms and values.
The Constitution's flexibility is a double-edged sword. While it enables the document to remain relevant and responsive to societal changes, it also invites varying interpretations that may stray from the original intent. Originalists argue that the interpretation should adhere as closely as possible to the Founding Fathers' intentions. However, even Originalists' views evolve over time, indicating the inherent flexibility and adaptability of constitutional interpretation.
In conclusion, the Constitution is indeed a living document, and loose interpretation plays a pivotal role in shaping its application in the modern era. This dynamic interpretation ensures that the Constitution remains adaptable to societal changes, allowing for the protection of rights and freedoms that reflect contemporary values and needs.
Sae and Hopi Speakers: Habitual Thought Patterns
You may want to see also
Interpretive amendments are necessary
The role of judges is to interpret the law rather than make policy, but sometimes they must provide 'interpretive amendments' when the amendment procedure is flawed or doesn't work. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court had to step in because Congress was too partisan. This is an example of how judges can provide necessary checks and balances on the political system when other branches of government fail to act.
Originalists, who interpret the constitution in a strict and literal way, often change their views on what the founding fathers meant, showing that even they are uncertain about the original meaning of the constitution. This was demonstrated in Stanford v. Kentucky, which ruled that it was constitutional to execute 16-year-olds, but this decision was later overturned by Roper v. Simmons.
Limits placed on the court ensure they will never stray too far into politics. For example, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), the Supreme Court initially ruled that income tax was unconstitutional, but this was later overturned by Congress passing the 16th Amendment. This shows that interpretive amendments can be checked and balanced by the political system.
A loose interpretation of the constitution tends to stress the broad grants of power to the federal government and is often associated with liberal political views. On the other hand, a strict interpretation tends to stress the retention of power by individual states and is more associated with conservative political views. Interpretive amendments are necessary to balance these competing interests and ensure that the constitution remains relevant and adaptable to changing circumstances.
Federalism: Guarding Against Tyranny in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Originalists' views change
Originalism is a legal theory in the United States that bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or through constitutional amendment. Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning.
Originalists are bound by changes to the Constitution that have been properly made through the amendment process. This is also why originalism can justify the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which was based on the 14th Amendment's privileges or immunities clause. This anti-discrimination provision states that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens.
Originalists are not bound by the original expected applications of the Constitution's text. They are bound by the original meaning of the text, and that meaning can and does apply to new and changing factual circumstances. For example, the First Amendment's protection of free speech applies to the internet, and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to GPS devices that police officers put on cars.
Some critics suggest that originalism leads to politically conservative results. However, originalism is a theory focused on process, not substance. It is conservative in the sense that it seeks to conserve the meaning of the Constitution as it was written. A good originalist judge will not hesitate to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution's original meaning, regardless of contemporary political consequences.
Originalism has featured prominently in the last three Supreme Court confirmation battles: those of Neil Gorsuch in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Understanding Varied Forms of Constituted Authority
You may want to see also
Courts are limited in their political involvement
The role of judges is to interpret the constitution rather than make policy. For example, in Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court essentially made policy, which is outside their role. The Constitution can be amended if originalism is found to negatively affect society. For example, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the interpretation of the Constitution allowed for same-sex marriage.
The limits placed on the courts mean they will never stray too far into politics. For instance, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), the Supreme Court ruled that income tax was unconstitutional, but this was overturned by Congress passing the 16th Amendment. Similarly, in Stanford v. Kentucky, the court ruled that it was constitutional to execute 16-year-olds, but this was later overturned by Roper v. Simmons.
The amendment procedure is flawed and doesn't always work, so judges must provide 'interpretive amendments'. In Roe v. Wade, Congress was too partisan, so the Supreme Court had to decide. Originalists change their views on what the founding fathers meant, indicating uncertainty.
The Constitution and Political Parties: A Complex Relationship
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A loose interpretation of the constitution is one that is not literal and tends to lean towards liberalism.
A loose interpretation stresses the broad grants of power to the federal government.
In Obergefell v Hodges (2015), a loose interpretation of the constitution allowed for same-sex marriage.
A strict interpretation of the constitution tends to be conservative and stresses the retention of power by individual state governments.
