Framers Vs Constitution

1618 Words7 Pages

As time has progressed, the United States has continuously changed to meet the needs of its people. With each passing day, the country has slowly shifted away from what it had been initially as created by our forefathers. One reason for this transformation has been the nation’s judicial branch which has influenced the course of social and reform movements, as well as our ideologies and beliefs. The court rulings under Earl Warren are evidence that the judicial branch is a powerful force that can be a catalyst for change.
The framers of the United States Constitution did not have any specific predictions for what the future would hold. It is also impossible for framers to cover every possible situation that could happen in the Constitution. …show more content…

This gives court the power to void any laws that they think violates the Constitution. In 1803, the Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison created the power for the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution and apply it to the actions of the executive and legislative branch. This is arguably one of the first major Supreme Court cases that helped emphasize the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall gave the opinion of the court and wrote that, “the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument” (Marshall). Having judicial review has allowed the court to become a powerful force of change because it makes it possible for the judicial branch to have an influence on government actions that could potentially harm citizens. Through the establishment of judicial review, the judicial branch has been an active role within the federal …show more content…

Compared to other nations’ constitutions, the United States’ constitution is very brief. Therefore, it is the people’s job to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. There are mainly two kinds of constitutional interpretation. The first type is known as the originalist approach. This type of approach leads to a strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution. Having an originalist approach removes flexibility because the interpretation is derived from the framer’s intent. Originalism also “better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract,” instead of being a ‘living document’ (Linder). Applying an originalist approach when making court decisions can potentially limit the power of the court and its ability to bring change to the

Open Document