Philosophy of Originalism and Constitutional Interpretation

Originalists think that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They look to several sources to determine this intent, including the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself.

Originalists consider the original intent to be the most pure way of interpreting the Constitution; the opinions of the Framers were, for the most part, well documented. Originalism is a family of theories, principally. The original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. Original meaning is the dominant form of the legal theory of originalism today. It contends that the terms of the United States Constitution should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified.

Constitutional interpretation is problematic because it can be difficult to distinguish legitimate interpretation from illegitimate change. The distinction depends largely on what a constitution is. A constitution, like any other law, necessarily has a meaning, which pre-exists judicial interpretation: it is not a set of meaningless marks on paper. Any plausible constitutional theory must offer an account of the nature of that meaning. In doing so, it must address two main questions. The first is whether the meaning of the constitution is given solely by its words, or also by additional evidence of underlying intentions, purposes or values. The second question is whether, in either case, its meaning is determined by the original meanings, intentions, purposes or values of the founding generation, or by contemporary meanings, intentions, purposes or values.

I, myself, stand with the originalism of the constitution. Reason being is this; the Constitution was built on the fibers of moral truths. If we believe that the Constitution should be changed to meet the needs now, wouldn’t it go against the grain of what the founding fathers wrote? Non-orginalist allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions.  The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.

When looking at the opposing view, the non-orginalist view, I look at how it could potentially disrupt how we see justice. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.

I feel that when there is too much government dictating what we need to live under, mixes for some serious repercussions. The Constitution is the rulebook for the government , which is why it was written to start with.
Our founding fathers knew that people generally can be corrupt, and people in power have more say in situations that can be life alternating, and therefore, the founding fathers decided to make sure their powers were confined . Now, when looking at the situation in today’s world, we see how the federal government wants to run the health care industry. We hear from people how great this will be, in reality this will be the worst case scenario. It is stated that the federal government has no authority to run the health care industry, welfare, unemployed and so on. I would go into the rest of the issues the federal government is not supposed to be running, but it’s all in the reading.

As we see how the government can easily abandon our Constitutional Protections, we see how easily it can truly affect us not only as citizens, but our rights to what our forefathers had seen. I had to enjoy the reading on the part of income tax.  Moore stated, “The income tax, however, soon became a cash cow for a Congress needing only the feeblest of excuses to spend money.” Again, I feel I do not need to elaborate on this situation. I feel we are going to get a point of being taxed to death or break the government, if they, the Congress don’t stop, the feeling in the air could be another revolution. The only way they can levy any kind of taxes or create any kind agency, is through a Constitutional amendment, which has to be ratified through the states. This is the only legal way to accomplish this, by way of the Constitution and how it was drawn up. 

When I read how the government uses crises to expand their domain, it made sense to me. In every crisis, there was a cry for more money and yet, when the crisis was over the money still had to be paid out. Benjamin Franklin had the right thought when asked about if the Constitution would survive. He stated, “Everything appears to promise it will last. But, in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”.

As we read the issues pertaining to the Constitution, I have to go back on what I originally had stated how the Constitution was founded on Christianity principals. We can go back as far as the basic law of man, the Ten Commandments. With these principals, the Constitution was adapted. People have changed it to their ill got and gains, does that make the principal of good, wrong? I guess it depends on who wants to change the rules. These laws are placed in federal buildings here in the good ole U.S.A. So, I ask, if we are a nation built on these principals and laws, why is the Constitution being questioned today?