Flexibility of the U.S. Constitution
This is an excerpt from the paper...
One of the clear strengths of the U.S. Constitution is its flexibility--this is a document that has been designed to evolve and grow over time in order to meet changed circumstances and new perspectives in society. The American system from the first was seen as something that would be organic rather than static and that would empower the people to make changes as they perceived a need to do so. In keeping with this idea of evolution, the founding Fathers provided for a judicial body, the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret the meaning of and application of the Constitution. Over the course of the last two centuries, the Supreme Court has made numerous interpretations and reinterpretations of the Constitution, with the philosophy of the judges tending between two poles. On the one hand is a belief in the meaning placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, a meaning often referred to as "original intent." Under this doctrine, cases are to be decided based on what the Founding Fathers meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution. An opposite view would hold that the interpretation of the Constitution should be made more on the basis of present circumstances and needs. This second approach need not ignore original intent, but it does not give it the same weight as the more conservative judges. How this issue is argued will be considered in terms of applications to the Fourth Amendment, showing finally that strict adherence to "original intent" actually fails
. . .
"ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it" (Kay, 1988, 230). Kay notes that discerning the original intent of statutes is a common practice and a requirement in judicial decision-making, and he finds reasons why explicit and direct consideration of original intent for constitutional decision-making might be even more necessary because erroneous decisions with reference to statutes are more easily corrected by legislatures, while erroneous constitutional interpretations are more difficult to resolve through the cumbersome amendment process. Dedication to the text does not give the text more power than the thinking of the human beings who created the document, however, though some might believe that was the case:
But this does not mean the Constitution's authority comes form the fact that its words are inscribed on a certain parchment located in the national archives. Its force derives from the historical and political events surrounding its creation and the regard in which those events were and continue to be held (Kay, 1988, 234).
Meese (1985) indeed finds that the language used by the framers was being used by them "to write a document not just for their times but for posterity" (M
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Justice Sutherland, Fourth Amendment, Hart Ely, Framers Bork, Supreme Court, Justice Brennan, Founding Fathers, Rights Bork, , Law Review, original intent, kay 1988, fourth amendment, brest 1980, original intentions, supreme court, meese 1985, brennan 1985, bork 1987, law review, brennan 1985 4, intentions kay 1988, university california davis, davis law review, law review 1,
Approximate Word count = 2116
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Flexibility of the U.S. Constitution
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
