DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Interpretations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Interpretations Judicial Interpretations Judicial activism Judicial activism refers to the judicial philosophy that is sometimes referred to as "legislating from the bench". Judicial activists believe that it is acceptable to rule on lawsuits in a way that leads to a preferred or desired outcomes, regardless of the law as it is written. Judicial restraint is generally thought of as the opposite of judicial activism. Matthew Schneider, a professor of law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, defines judicial activism as, "the theory under which judges may 'actively' interpret the law on a broad plane and are not necessarily constrained to relying on the sources and issues strictly before them." Commentators have attempted to define judicial activism in a number of ways, some of them varying widely. While there are common themes to most definitions, there is disagreement about how precisely to define the term. Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions." Bradley Canon posited six dimensions along which judge courts may be perceived as activist, including majoritarianism, interpretive stability, interpretive fidelity, substance/democratic process, specificity of policy, availability of an alternate policymaker. David Strauss has argued that judicial activism can be narrowly defined as one or more of three possible things: overturning laws as unconstitutional, overturning judicial precedent, and ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution. Others have been less confident of the term's meaning, finding it instead to be little more than a rhetorical shorthand. Kermit Roosevelt III stated that "in practice 'activist' turns out to be little more than a rhetorically charged shorthand for decision the speaker disagrees with." However others have scolded this approach as unhelpful because it relies on subjective judgments. Judicial restraint The Glossary of Political Economy Terms published by Auburn University defines judicial restraint as the "view that the Supreme Court (and other lesser courts) should not read the judges' own philosophies or policy preferences into the constitution and laws and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state governments within their constitutional spheres of authority. On such a view, judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states." In Fundamentals of Judicial Philosophy, judicial restraint is defined as a "jurist (judge or justice) who adheres to a philosophy of restraint can be characterized as one who believes that democracy has intrinsic, not just instrumental, value; that the judiciary is the least powerful of the three branches of government; and reveres the values of stability and predictability in lawmaking." Matthew Schneider, a professor of law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, defines judicial restraint as, "the notion that judges base their decisions on purely legal sources directly relevant to the question at hand, such as statutes and constitutions, instead of on outside sources or their subjective opinions. Rick Esenberg a nationally renowned legal expert at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee defined judicial restraint as that a judge exercising restraint must act on external and legitimate sources of authority. Judicial restraint, for our purposes, is the notion that judges ought to base their decisions upon a source of authority that is outside of themselves and their own notions of the just. More fundamentally, this source should be rooted, at some point, in the formal consent of the governed, as opposed to the judge's preferred political or moral philosophy. In other words, the exercise of judicial authority ought to be based upon, or fairly inferable from, some language in the constitution or statutes. The textualist and strict constructionist approach The Strict Constructionist approach to interpreting the Constitution, insists on the literal meaning of a provision in the face of contrary claims that the text must mean more or less than it expressly says. This approach appeals to the promises of simplicity and determinacy. For example, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black insisted that the First Amendment's command that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" meant exactly that, "no law." Textualism is a similar philosophy of interpretation, though with significant differences. Textualists, like Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, agree with Strict Constructionists that the proper scope of inquiry into Constitutional interpretation begins and ends with the text itself--not with the "intent" of the writers, the philosophies of judges, or the consensus of society. However, Textualism differs from Strict Constructionism in its appreciation for context and its search for the understood meaning of constitutional language, as opposed to the literal meaning of the words in isolation. For example, Scalia cites the 1993 case Smith v. United States as an instance in which the literal interpretation strayed from the reasonable meaning of the law. In this case, the Smith had been arrested for purchasing drugs, and, in accordance with the applicable law, had received a harsher than usual sentence because he had "used a gun" while committing the crime. Scalia argues that the language is reasonably understood to mean the use of a gun as a weapon, whereas Smith had merely offered the unloaded gun in exchange for the drugs. The Supreme Court - employing a Strict Constructionist rationale - upheld the increased penalty. A textualist interpretation would have construed the law's language according to its natural meaning, instead of by its literal meaning. The originalist approach The originalist approach aspires to interpret constitutional text in light of original intentions or understandings of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. Advocates of originalism are centrally concerned with discovering the subjective intentions of the figures who wrote or framed particular constitutional provisions. They tend to focus on the original public meaning or understanding of a constitutional provision for the generation that ratified or amended that provision. Originalism, of course, has its own liabilities, including determining what counts as evidence of intent, whose intent counts, and whether the promulgated intent should be abstract or concrete. Accordingly, one common criticism of originalism is that an originalist, while claiming to interpret a provision based on the original intent behind it, actually will pick and choose from a variety of sources to meet the meaning he or she wishes to give it. Originalism differs from Textualism in that it looks to the subjective intent of the lawmaker, instead of looking to the objective meaning of the language as understood (by any reasonably well-educated third party) at the time of its enactment. The developmentalist approach (evolutionist) The developmentalist approach builds on doctrinalism by accepting the value of incremental additions of judge- made doctrine, but goes further by enlarging the interpretive arena to include broader historical events, such as informal practices, usages, and political culture. Developmentalists reject both the notions of a static constitution and of "The Moral Constitution", and instead tend to focus on "how meaning has evolved." Chief Justice Earl Warren exemplified this when he said the Constitution ought to be interpreted in light of "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Accordingly, proponents of developmentalism often argue the theory of the Living Constitution, which premises that the Constitution is, to some degree, dynamic. Because of this, however, developmentalism can be assailed on many of the same points as doctrinalism. For example, it does little to advance any goal of stability, for by its very nature it commits itself to the legitimacy of what it calls "constitutional change" not merely from the past to the present but also from the present to an unknown future. As such, a common criticism is that it makes the Constitution "mean nothing," because it holds that it can mean "anything." HANDOUT 1 Conversations on the Constitution: Judicial Interpretation with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer 1. Define “tyranny of the majority.” 2. From history or modern times, give three examples where the majority of persons acted in a way which was later determined to be wrong. Example Problem How was it corrected? 3. Which is the best way to correct situations where the majority is in the wrong? (Consider these questions before you respond: Should legislatures correct the problem? Should courts? Why or why not? Is there any one best way to fix problems? How effective and timely are the solutions?) HANDOUT 2 Conversations on the Constitution: Judicial Interpretation with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer Directions: For each of the following issues, decide how justices would look at the issue depending on their philosophies. How would the textualists see the issue? Complete that box. How would developmentalists see the issue? Complete that box. At the end, write your own issue and address it. Issue Textualist View Developmentalist View Abortion: Can states restrict access to abortions? Privacy: Can states restrict the activity of people in their own homes? Gun Control: Can states deny persons the right to have a handgun? Exclusionary Rule: Should evidence which is unlawfully obtained by the police be admissible at trial? Write your own issue here and address it: Thought question: Do differing philosophies always mean different conclusions? .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Equal Protection and Moral Circumstance: Accounting for Constitutional Basics
    Fordham Law Review Volume 59 Issue 4 Article 2 1991 Equal Protection and Moral Circumstance: Accounting for Constitutional Basics Donald E. Lively Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Donald E. Lively, Equal Protection and Moral Circumstance: Accounting for Constitutional Basics, 59 Fordham L. Rev. 485 (1991). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol59/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EQUAL PROTECTION AND MORAL CIRCUMSTANCE: ACCOUNTING FOR CONSTITUTIONAL BASICS DONALD E. LIVELY* INTRODUCTION 8 INCE its ratification in 1868, the equal protection guarantee' has been notable for its underachievement. The fourteenth amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War to secure the citizenship and basic rights of those individuals whose humanity the Constitution's origi- nal framers bartered away.2 The amendment also empowered Congress to enforce its provisions through appropriate legislation.' In its first test after ratification,4 however, the fourteenth amendment's potential for challenging official discrimination was significantly cur- tailed. The Supreme Court effectively trimmed the privileges and immu- nities clause to the point that it has never operated as a meaningful check upon exercises of state power.' Although initially determining that the * Professor, College of Law, University of Toledo; A.B., University of California, Berkeley; M.S., Northwestern University; J.D., University of California, Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: the Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism
    Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2017 Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: The Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism Ken Levy Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Repository Citation Levy, Ken, "Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: The Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism" (2017). Journal Articles. 413. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/413 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: Ken Levy, Why the Late Justice Scalia Was Wrong: The Fallacies of Constitutional Textualism, 21 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 45 (2017) Provided by: LSU Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Fri Mar 16 15:53:01 2018 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device WHY THE LATE JUSTICE SCALIA WAS WRONG: THE FALLACIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL TEXTUALISM by Ken Levy * The late justice Scalia emphatically rejected the notion that there is a general "right to privacy" in the Constitution, despite the many cases that have held otherwise over the past several decades.
    [Show full text]
  • AP Government: Due Process & Roe V. Wade
    Social Studies Virtual Learning AP Government: Due Process & Roe v. Wade April 13, 2020 AP Government Lesson: April 13, 2020 Objective: LOR 3.B Explain the extent which states are limited by the due process clause from infringing upon individual rights. Warm Up: Write down your answer the following question. There are no right or wrongs here, but this is the focus of the lesson today! What is the right to privacy? What are 3 aspects of everyday life that it includes? Lesson: Roe v. Wade As this is a required case for the test, there are some ideas that are important to remember. Please write these down in your own words so you know what they are. Term Definition Due process The 14th Amendment clause guaranteeing that no state clause shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause to provide for “selective incorporation” of amendments into the states, meaning that neither the states nor the federal government may abridge individual rights protected by the Constitution. Term Definition “Penumbra Derived from the Latin for “partial shadow.” The Supreme of privacy” Court has ruled that several amendments in the Bill of Rights cast a “penumbra” of the right to privacy, although the right to privacy itself is never explicitly named. For example, the Court has interpreted that the 4th Amendment right of the people to be secure in their houses from unreasonable searches and seizures implies a right to privacy in the home. Right to The right to be “left alone,” or to be free of government privacy scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Rights Under State Constitutions in 2018: What Rights Are Deeply Rooted in a Modern-Day Consensus of the States? Steven G
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 94 | Issue 1 Article 2 11-2018 Individual Rights Under State Constitutions in 2018: What Rights are Deeply Rooted in a Modern-Day Consensus of the States? Steven G. Calabresi Northwestern Pritzker School of Law James Lindgren Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Hannah M. Begley Stanford Law School Kathryn L. Dore Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Sarah E. Agudo Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 49 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\94-1\NDL102.txt unknown Seq: 1 21-NOV-18 10:57 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS IN 2018: WHAT RIGHTS ARE DEEPLY ROOTED IN A MODERN-DAY CONSENSUS OF THE STATES? Steven Gow Calabresi, James Lindgren, Hannah M. Begley, Kathryn L. Dore & Sarah E. Agudo* INTRODUCTION .................................................. 51 R I. METHODOLOGY ........................................... 53 R II. THE DATA ON THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS ................. 54 R A. Rights Bearing on Religion ............................. 54 R 1. Establishment Clauses ............................ 54 R 2. Free Exercise Clauses ............................ 62 R © 2018 Steven Gow Calabresi, James Lindgren, Hannah M. Begley, Kathryn L. Dore & Sarah E. Agudo. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Article in any format at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the authors, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review, and includes this provision in the copyright notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and the Democratic Dilemma: Proposing a “Controlled Activism” Alternative Martin H
    Florida Law Review Volume 64 | Issue 6 Article 1 1-27-2013 Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and the Democratic Dilemma: Proposing a “Controlled Activism” Alternative Martin H. Redish Matthew .B Arnould Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Martin H. Redish and Matthew B. Arnould, Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and the Democratic Dilemma: Proposing a “Controlled Activism” Alternative, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1485 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss6/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Redish and Arnould: Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and the Democrati Florida Law Review Founded 1948 Formerly University of Florida Law Review VOLUME 64 DECEMBER 2012 NUMBER 6 DUNWODY DISTINGUISHED LECTURE IN LAW JUDICIAL REVIEW, CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, AND THE DEMOCRATIC DILEMMA: PROPOSING A “CONTROLLED ACTIVISM” ALTERNATIVE Martin H. Redish & Matthew B. Arnould Abstract No problem generates more debate among constitutional scholars than how to approach constitutional interpretation. This Article critiques two representative theories (or families of theories), originalism and nontextualism, and offers a principled alternative, which we call “controlled activism.”
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Textualists: a Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia Michael J
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1994 A Tale of Two Textualists: A Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia Michael J. Gerhardt Repository Citation Gerhardt, Michael J., "A Tale of Two Textualists: A Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia" (1994). Faculty Publications. 990. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/990 Copyright c 1994 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs ARTICLES A TALE OF TWO TEXTUALISTS: A CRITICAL COMPARISON OF JUSTICES BLACK AND SCALIA MICHAEL J. GERHARDT* The idea that Justices Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia have anything in common jurisprudentially is counterintuitive. Justice Black is associated with the progressive social and economic legislation symbolized by the New Deal and with judicial activism in protecting the poor and disen­ franchised.1 He is beloved by many liberals as a champion of individual rights, especially freedom of speech and of the press. In contrast, Justice Scalia is revered by conservatives as a true believer-combating the rising tide of liberalism, big government, and judicial activism-set on restoring traditional notions of federalism and judicial restraint.2 Any effort to liken these two Justices makes both liberals and conservatives recoil. * Professor of Law, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, The College of William and Mary. B.A. Yale University; M.Sc. London School of Economics; J.D. University of Chicago. I am grateful for the encouragement and helpful comments on earlier drafts I received from Marc Arkin, Erwin Chemerinsky, George Cochran, Neal Devins, Jill Fisch, Tracy Higgins, Michael Herz, Sandy Levinson, Chip Lupu, Tracey Maclin, John McGinnis, Peter Shane, Bill Treanor, Steve Wermiel, and Ron Wright.
    [Show full text]
  • Duke Law School
    Neil S. Siegel David W. Ichel Professor of Law Professor of Political Science Director, DC Summer Institute on Law & Policy Duke University School of Law 210 Science Drive Durham, NC 27708 [email protected] (919) 613-7157 EDUCATION Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley: J.D., 2001 Graduated 1st in class; Boalt Hall Fellowship (full tuition, fees); Senior Articles Editor, California Law Review; Jurisprudence Awards in Federal Courts, U.S. Supreme Court Seminar, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law & Public Choice Theory, Law & Economics, and 18th Century Constitutional Design University of California, Berkeley: Ph.D. (Jurisprudence & Social Policy), 2001 Dissertation: Intransitivities Protect Minorities: Interpreting Madison’s Theory of the Extended Republic; Field Examinations in U.S. Constitutional Theory and Law & Economics; Berkeley Graduate Fellowship (full tuition, fees, stipend); Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs Fellow; John M. Olin Law & Economics Fellowship Duke University: M.A. (Economics), 1995 Full-tuition scholarship; Spengler Fellow Duke University: B.A., summa cum laude (Economics, Political Science), 1994 Angier B. Duke Memorial Scholarship (full tuition); Phi Beta Kappa; Graduation with Distinction in Economics, Political Science; Prize for Best Senior Thesis in Economics EXPERIENCE Duke University School of Law Durham, N.C. David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science July 2013 – present Director, DC Summer Institute on Law and Policy July 2013 – present Co-Director, Program in Public Law July 2008 – June 2018 Professor of Law and Political Science July 2009 – June 2013 Associate Professor of Law and Political Science July 2007 – June 2009 Assistant Professor of Law and Political Science July 2004 – June 2007 American Constitution Society Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Our Written Constitution
    READING OUR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION JEFFERSON A. HOLT “[W]ords are the tools with which we work, the material . out of which the Constitution was written. Everything depends on our under- standing of them.”1 INTRODUCTION The Constitution of the United States of America contains only 4,543 words.2 Its twenty-seven Amendments add an addi- tional 3,048 words.3 Together, these 7,591 words comprise our Nation’s great charter.4 Although relatively brief,5 the Constitu- tion6 is expansive in scope. Indeed, its broad terms are not un- like those often found in simple trust agreements.7 While such language allows for needed flexibility, the lack of specificity in With gratitude and appreciation to Professor Patrick Wiseman of the Georgia State University College of Law, without whom this article would not have been possible. 1Garson Kanin, Trips to Felix, in FELIX FRANKFURTER: A TRIBUTE 34, 41–42 (Wallace Mendelson ed., 1964). 2Sol Bloom, Constitution of the United States: Questions & Answers, U.S. NAT’L ARCHIVES & RECS. ADMIN., http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution _q_and_a.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2015). 3See U.S. CONST. amends. I–XXVII. 4See Stephen Gardbaum, The Myth and the Reality of American Constitutional Excep- tionalism, 107 MICH. L. REV. 391, 399 (2008). 5By way of comparison, “[t]he average state constitution is more than three times as long as the federal Constitution. Only a few states have fewer than 10,000 words in their constitutions.” DAVID R. BERMAN, STATE AND LOCAL POLITICS 77 (9th ed. 2000). Similarly, the median book length—about 64,000 words—is signifi- cantly longer than the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Originalism and Living Constitutionalism As Moral Readings of the American Constitution
    LIVING ORIGINALISM AND LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM AS MORAL READINGS OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION JAMES E. FLEMING∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1171 I. THE BALKANIZATION (AND BALKINIZATION) OF ORIGINALISM........ 1173 II. BALKIN’S LIVING ORIGINALISM AS A MORAL READING OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION ................................................................ 1175 III. STRAUSS’S LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM AS A MORAL READING OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION .................................................... 1177 A. Originalism and Its Sins ............................................................ 1177 B. The Common Law ...................................................................... 1179 C. The Role of the Written Constitution: Common Ground and Jefferson’s Problem ............................................................ 1180 D. Constitutional Amendments and the Living Constitution .......... 1183 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 1184 INTRODUCTION With this event – A Symposium on Jack Balkin’s Living Originalism and David Strauss’s The Living Constitution – we launch a Boston University School of Law series of symposia on significant recent books in law. The distinctive format is to pick two significant books that join issue on an important topic, to invite the author of each book to write an essay on the other book, and to invite several Boston University School of Law faculty
    [Show full text]
  • Rule of Law and Constitution Building
    Rule of Law and Constitution Building The Role of Regional Organizations Rule of Law and Constitution Building The Role of Regional Organizations Contributors: Sumit Bisarya Amanda Cats-Baril Sujit Choudhry Raul Cordenillo Nora Hedling Michelle Staggs Kelsall Lorraine Kershaw Kristen Sample Christoph Sperfeldt George Mukundi Wachira Hesham Youssef The Department of Legal Cooperation, Secretariat for Legal Affairs, Organization of American States Editors: Raul Cordenillo Kristen Sample International IDEA © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2014 International IDEA Strömsborg, SE-103 34, STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 698 37 00, fax: +46 8 20 24 22 E-mail: [email protected], website: www.idea.int The electronic version of this publication is available under a Creative Commons Licence (CCl) – Creative Commons Attribute-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Licence. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the publication as well as to remix and adapt it provided it is only for non-commercial purposes, that you appropriately attribute the publication, and that you distribute it under an identical licence. For more information on this CCl, see: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/>. International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. Graphic design by: Turbo Design, Ramallah Cover photo: © Artist: faith47, photographer: Rowan Pybus Printed in Sweden ISBN: 978-91-87729-63-8 Foreword The past few years have seen remarkable social movements for democratic change emerge around the world. They have demanded greater justice and dignity, more transparent political processes, a fair share of political power and an end to corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned
    Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the following remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005. JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s a pizzazzy topic: Constitutional Interpretation. It is however an important one. I was vividly reminded how important it was last week when the Court came out with a controversial decision in the Ropercase. And I watched one television commentary on the case in which the host had one person defending the opinion on the ground that people should not be subjected to capital punishment for crimes they commit when they are younger than eighteen, and the other person attacked the opinion on the ground that a jury should be able to decide that a person, despite the fact he was under eighteen, given the crime, given the person involved, should be subjected to capital punishment. And it struck me how irrelevant it was, how much the point had been missed. The question wasn’t whether the call was right or wrong. The important question was who should make the call. And that is essentially what I am addressing today. I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I’m not a “strict constructionist,” despite the introduction. I don’t like the term “strict construction.” I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Originalism? It Is a Bedrock of Constitutional
    Originalism, in a Nutshell By Emily C. Cumberland* hat is originalism? It is a bedrock of constitutional construction, but if original intent were considered it would interpretation for federalists, but many have only be the intent of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, Wfound it diffi cult to defi ne comprehensively what not the framers personally.14 Another criticism of the original it means. Originalism is, broadly speaking, a catchall term intent theory is that it requires projecting the drafters’ personal for methods of constitutional interpretation principled on outlooks onto a future unknown and unimaginable to them.15 fi delity to the Constitution.1 It represents not one school of Since these arguments against original intent were put forth, and thought but a spectrum of theories about how the Constitution perhaps in an eff ort to salvage a workable originalism, there has should be interpreted.2 There is no solid consensus as to been a gradual shift among originalists towards interpretation when originalism became a formally-recognized method of on the basis of original meaning.16 constitutional interpretation, although at least one account Phase II: Original Meaning credits Paul Brest with coining the term in “Th e Misconceived Quest for Original Understanding” in 1980.3 Another account The shift from original intent to original meaning claims then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III fi rst publicized was basically a shift from a focus on the framers’ subjective originalism in a speech before the American Bar Association in intentions to a focus on the text’s objective meaning during 17 1985.4 Regardless of its exact debut, originalism has become the framers’ time.
    [Show full text]