Justice Scalia Constitution

Seminar 1DB# 2
Q. 1

Interpretation of the Constitution

In his speech, Justice Scalia noted that the interpretation of the Constitution depends on when it was interpreted. He also stated that the interpretation should be “reasonable.”
Justice Scalia is said to be an Originalist. He explicated the originalist view comparing with the living document view.

Originalist’s View
In his view, as an originalist, Justice Scalia explained that once original meanings of the Constitutions when they were adopted were found, there isn’t much room to get around it. He is “handcuffed”, he says. The only alternative is the use of natural law. Let the judge decide based on the principle of natural law.

The Constitution Is a Living Document

Under this

Justice Scalia also pointed out the misconception held among some of the proponents that the living Constitution would give the society greater freedom. However, Justice Scalia opined that the living constitution could eliminate and had eliminated some liberties for the individuals; the confrontation clause and the right to jury trials, for example. Moreover, Justice Scalia criticized such a view as that the proponents believe what will happen is what the majority wants to happen, and therefore, justice ought to be dependent on the Constitutions that the majority wants it to be. Nonetheless, in Justice Scalia’s view, that does not serve the purpose of the Constitutional guarantees of individual rights.

Justice Scalia added that, if you believe the Constitution is not a legal text, and that it gives an effect to the most fundamental values of the society as the society changes from year to year, and thus, the Constitution should “reflect the evolving standards of decency” of the American society, the judge should not be the one to decide as Marshall declared. Rather, the legislature should be deciding what is constitutional. The Constitution then means what the majority wants it to

I believe that it is important that interpretation of the Constitution reflects the standards of decency as the society evolves over time. This flexibility is crucial to serving the utility and efficacy in the ever-changing society because the changes we have been observing in our lives in the last couple of centuries are tremendous. We have gone from riding a horse wagon to operating a drone. What used to be considered “not unconstitutional” is widely believed to be unconstitutional today without even giving much thought to it; It is hard to believe but women did not have rights to vote not too long ago. As our lifestyle, has changed so much and “the social norm” has evolved accordingly, sometimes, it would be necessary to take these facts into consideration in the process of interpretation of the Constitution. However, it is important to keep in mind both the original intent of the writer of the Constitution at the time of adoption as well as never to deviate from its original intent of providing for the protection of individual rights. Accordingly, which approach is more appropriate would depend on the issue brought to the court because the degree of potential risks for infinite manipulation or prejudice and bias would depend on the