interpreting the constitution

Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation

There are two approaches to constitutional interpretation: originalism and living constitutionalism. There are disagreements about which school of thought is the best at interpreting the constitution.

Originalism

I believe that the originalism school aims to grasp and appreciate the constitution's unique purpose. When the need arises, the living constitution usually changes over time. On the other hand, originalism holds that once a law is enacted, it cannot be easily amended. The federalists strongly supported living constitutionalism, whereas the anti-federalists supported constitutional originalism. In originalism, judges are not allowed to make legitimate decisions, and they should be neutral and objective in ensuring that the rules of the constitution are followed to the maximum as expected. This ensures that there is no alteration of the constitution whatsoever. In the long run, it also helps the court maintain its authority because there is nothing that the court can change to favor another party. On the other hand, in living constitutionalism judges are allowed to solve a crisis, this leads to judges interpreting the constitution at their understanding. This may lead to the constitution not serving the purpose that it was meant. Additionally, when judges have these powers, they can be easily convinced by the influential people to change the constitution to their favor (Hamilton 283).

Living Constitutionalism

Additionally, originalism of the constitution provides predictability and stability. In originalism, one can predict how the law will be in the future. The law is also difficult to change. This is because when there is need to change it, many people are involved hence making it difficult to change. On the other hand, the living constitution is highly unpredictable and unstable. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this rigidity is problematic when an urgent issue needs to be solved because changing it will take a longer time. A person cannot forecast how it will be in future because of its changing nature. Living constitution does not require the consent of the citizens to change it because a few powerful people can do so. This nature of the living constitution is advantageous when urgent issues need to be solved because changing it is easy and faster.

Checks and Balances

Originalism of the constitution allows for checks and balances in every department of the government; this means that one department cannot do something wrong and get away with it without being questioned. Additionally, it ensures that no department has too many powers. On the hand, the living constitution does not allow for checks and balances for every government department because the judiciary is more powerful. This is because the judges are allowed to change the constitution (Madison 317-322).

Sovereignty of the Constitution

Originalism of the constitution ensures that the constitution is sovereign and is not submissive to either international agreements or international law. Therefore, when there is a conflict between the two, the constitution prevails. This will prevent America from being influenced by outside forces. On the other hand, the living constitutionalism allows international law to be superior to the country's constitution. This leads to the sovereignty of the constitution being undermined, and hence the state will be easily controlled by the outside forces (Jay, 31).

Conclusion

Conclusively, originalism is the best approach to interpret the constitution as it ensures rules of the constitution are adhered to as stated despite having a major drawback of inflexibility to accommodate needs and changes emerging in the society.

Works Cited