In addition, Since the Constitution is so short, so old along these lines hard to change, for it to be serious to contemporary society it obliges understanding by the courts and at last it is the Supreme Court which figures out what the Constitution implies. There are altogether different methodologies to the understanding of the Constitution with the two primary strands of thought being known as originalism and the Living Constitution. Originalism is a guideline of translation that tries to find the first importance or expectation of the constitution. It is focused around the standard that the legal shouldn't make, alter or annulment laws yet just to maintain them. This approach has a tendency to be underpinned by progressives.
Constitution: Does it Defend us from Tyranny? One of the main conflicts for ratifying the Constitution was on how it would guard against tyranny. The Constitution is a document which states how the government will work. The Constitution had some flaws but it wasn 't until after it was made that they amended it and added the bill of rights. The Constitution guards against tyranny by limiting the power of the government using the Bill of rights, Separation of powers, and Checks and balances.
Madison was the main and most important figure who wrote the constitution, even though at first he was one of the several that did not think the Bill of Rights should have been written. Later, he first had the idea and considered to change some things in the Constitution, thinking that it was missing something, pointing to the idea of adding the amendments, he wanted to protect the civil
The dissenting opinion included: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Roberts took a strict-constructionist approach and stated that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction because same-sex marriage was not explicitly stated in the constitution. He stated that although same-sex marriage may be a good policy it is not the Supreme Court’s duty to make that decision. He held that the right to same-sex marriage should be given to the states rather than the national government. The constitution protected the right to marriage and requires states to implement these laws equally but the Supreme Court should not engage in judicial policy making.
This does not allow courts to take into account the views of contemporary society. Id. In Justice Scalia 's view, the Constitution was not supposed to change but to change to citizens ' basic fundamental rights and responsibilities. Id. Justice Scalia was appalled by "judicial activism" and believed the place for change was in the legislature, where people are represented.
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why. The Constitution may be a mess and need amendments, but it covers our basic rights and freedoms.
Does John Locke have an answer to Aristotle’s question of: “what is a good citizen”? Aristotle wants to explore and understand nature of different states and constitutions but in order to do that, he argues that first we would have to take a deeper look at the nature of citizenship. Aristotle believes that saying that a citizen is someone who lives in a city or has access to the courts of laws is not enough, he supplements this argument by mentioning other people groups that has access to these things as well, specifically slaves and resident aliens (The Politics of Aristotle, 2009, p. 122). Instead, Aristotle proposes an idea that citizen is someone who upholds the public office and participates in administration of justice, this definition, which he suggests is only applicable to individuals in democratic state, is then further broadened stating that: “a citizen is anyone who is entitled to share in deliberative or judicial office”. To understand if John Locke has an answer to Aristotle’s question or if he’s even interested in such a question it is necessary to look deeper and explore more how Aristotle and John Locke views the states and constitutions, how they explain them and what are their views on citizenship (if they have any).
Such crucial decisions may concern faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death. The federal constitution guarantees the right of individuals to make these decisions according to their own conscience and beliefs. The government is not constitutionally permitted to regulate such deeply personal matters. The right of privacy protected by the Constitution gained a foothold in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. (1965), in which the Supreme Court struck down a state statute forbidding married adults from using birth control because the statute violated the sanctity of the marital bedroom. Acknowledging that the Constitution does not mention the word privacy anywhere in its text, the Court held that a general right to privacy may be inferred from the express language of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as from the interests protected by them.
On one side people say the federal government's involvement in gun laws would infringe upon people’s second amendment rights. On the other side, people say the government should act. In the case, in increasing gun laws the federal government should act. Since the beginning of the United States the choice of gun law has been left to the states and because of this many states have lackadaisical about implementing gun laws. Currently, Idaho and Montana don’t have any of the seven regulations stated above.
Many of the court’s decisions were controversial, and critics have charged that justices/ judges have written their own values into the constitution. There are several restrictions on the exercise of judicial review courts may strike down unconstitutional laws only when cases are brought to them. In the absence of a case, judges may not issue advisory opinion – that is, they may not say what they think a constitutional rule means or whether a law is invalid, moreover not every case presents the possibility of judicial review. The parties seeking review must have “standing”- that is, they must be the ones actually affected by the law in question. Also, the dispute must be “ripe” – a person may not ask a court to void a law if it has not yet been applied to that person.
Edmund Burke once said, "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." (Burke 36) A country 's constitution needs mechanisms in place to make amendments because as progress is made the landscape of a country is altered. Times change and people change. Constitutions are stories nations tell about themselves (Adams 3), how they wish to protect their citizens and how it must "provide more than a legal blueprint for governance" (Adams 2) In Eric Adams article, Canadian Constitutional Identities, he explains that a Constitution has to do more than be the highest law of the land, for it to work it needs to "be felt as well as comprehended, a constitution that engaged the intellect, but, more importantly, stirred
Textualism is interpretation based on what is actually writing in the constitution, which is what the dissenters in this case believed they should have ruled on. Chief Justice Roberts wrote while the ruling is fair, he believes it shouldn’t have been ruled on by the Supreme Court because it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. The majority ruling is more from the originalism perspective because they interpreted what was in the constitution and applied it to the situation at hand. The constitution is broad, and those who exercise originalism believe the framers left it that way on purpose in order to be able to adapt the constitution to changing
Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in. The Federalists felt it was necessary to rush in a document to serve as a backbone for the nation. The Anti-Federalists felt that the government was too new and inexperienced to form a dependable set of laws. They believed that rushing
The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create a dynamic, "living"
This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval. The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification.