Difference Between Constitutionalism And Originalism

The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.”

Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.

Both documents from both the Federalist document number one and the Anti-Federalists document number one examine what our nation would be like under one central government. These documents are very generalized introductions for their arguments to either created a new constitution, or ratify our existing one. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the United States didn 't use a large, powerful government as we know it today. The nation put most of the power into individual states which created several issues with the overall standing of the U.S. The governing document during this time, the Articles of Confederation, had multiple weaknesses including that there was no tax authority, no chief executive, and no judicial system. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 ultimately allowed for a functional, united governing system. The Federalists argument was more valid than the Anti-Federalist 's argument because they argued for an adequate government to preserve the union, a strong and energetic government, political prosperity, and the protection of life and liberty.

The United States has worked under two constitutions. Articles of Confederation was the first constitution in our nation. It was in effect from March 1st, 1781, after Maryland ratified it. Articles of Confederation was replaced by The Constitution on June 21, 1788, which was ratified by New Hampshire. The main principles behind the modern constitution were human rights, accountability, power separation, representative government, and independence of judiciary. The focus was on how the individual liberty could be permanently secured and preserved.

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society.

The Federalists believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution. They believed that the constitution was a living document and could be changed as the people in society changed. The Federalists believed that if needed the document should have been changeable if it was for the better of the country and the people. An example of this was when the government changed what was considered cruel and unusual punishment for the sake of the people.The

From the Constitution’s ratification in 1787 through the 1850s, many American historians shared the consensus that the founding fathers had designed the Constitution the way they did because they were trying to protect the citizens and their rights. James Kent was one very prominent historian among this group. In his book, Commentaries on American Law (1826), he stated “THE government of the United States was erected by the free voice and joint will of the people of America, for their common defence [defense] and general welfare...and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness.” (Kent) Essentially, James Kent was trying to convey the point

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). Brennan believed that all important reading such as the Constitution require the reader to go much more in depth rather than to just scratch the surface of the text. He believed in viewing the Constitution with human dignity in mind. Human dignity is in a sense what the Constitution is composed of. The Founding Fathers did not wish for anything other than the respect of human dignity in this country.

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

The us constitution and the Articles of Confederation are similar but different in many ways. The articles of confederation line out the basic ideas of government and written in the US Constitution are the expanded ideas that make the United States Unique.

The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer.

The two constitution I am gonna compare are the United States of America constitution, and the Canadian constitution. Like the U.S constitution, the Canadian constitution is mostly the same since it got many of its laws from the U.S constitution. Both constitution have many provinces that they are divided into since the place is too big, as well as to divide power, as well as that they both have an executive power since they need someway to be able to divide the power. Unlike the U.S, Canada has a Queen that controls the executive government. Canada has its own version of the Bill Of Rights called Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the end of its constitution. The only difference in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the Bill of Rights

The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.

The meaning of the Constitution may be puzzling and unclear but I find that the Living Constitution approach is the most practical for making judgements about particular cases. If I were a justice in the Supreme Court, I would use this approach because it’s based on a system that the document of the Constitution sets up a set of timeless principles that are applied in today’s world and not simply based on the time when it was written. The Constitution should be used to help solve problems by coming up with what these principles mean when applied in today’s world. An example of this is the controversy of whether marriage can or cannot be denied to gay people because of equality. Those who go by the living constitution approach agree that marriage cannot be denied to gay people because the

The British Empire was considered one of the greatest empires ever seen in history; it was considered the empire where the sun never sets on. Well after years some countries gained its independence from the British colonies like the United States of America; which is now considered one of the most powerful states in the 21st century. The American and British relation is friendly since of the reasons is that they have common interests, same origin and Elizabeth English. Although both of these countries have many things in common but most importantly they differ due to their political systems based on their constitution, executive, legislature, judiciary, political parties and the style of politics.