How should the constitution be interpreted?

Question

This is a question for my American Government class.

Answer 1

It should be interpretted with a sense of discipline and with deference to what was intended -- according to available "legislative history."

For example, I believe the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause should be interpretted to guarantee only racial equality. All other forms of inequality are presumptively acceptable and should only be analyzed under an extremely deferential, lenient "rational-basis test." The only known purpose to the Equal Protection Clause was to guarantee racial equality. The fact that the Clause does not literally say that is no reason to run wild with that Clause and use it to ban any-ol'-form of "discrimination" that you don't like.

Another example is with the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The Clause itself does not provide insight as to what kinds of punishment are "cruel," but the Clause surely does not ban capital punishment, because that was obviously not intended.

Answer 2

I think statements like "It should be read just as it is...thats all there is to it..Not interpreted..just read as is... " are wrong.

If we aren't allowed to interpret the constitution as it relates to us today.....we wouldn't be able to create amendments. That can be seen in the 18th & 21st amendments. First, it was decided to ban alcohol & then times & opion changed & the amendment was repealed.

As recently as 1971, we realised times had changed & we ratified the 26th amendment, reducing the voting age from 21 to 18.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, we can first consider the wording of the existing constition & amendments. We might put the second amendment in context of ALL of the amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." and say that only malitias can bear arms - nowhere does it say that the individual has the right to bear arms. Or we could ratify a new amendment negating the second amendment - or we could leave it alone. I have an opinion. But it's not germaine to this discussion.

Similarly - what is the freedom of the press, in the first amendment ? Where is the freedom, documented, that is specific to the press - it should also pointed out that, technically - TV, radio & the web are NOT the PRESS, they are the media.

In the end, we can either agree to allow the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, as it applies today - or we may be forced to ratify new amendments, to negate existing ones.

Answer 3

Personally, I'm a literalist. Follow the text, within reason. For example, the 1st Amendment doesn't mention movies or email or websites, but those should still be considered types of speech.

Follow the text. But where there is ambiguity, interpret the text to allow maximum freedoms for the individual and maximum restraint over the federal government.

Why choose that approach, rather than the opposite? Because the 10th Amendment stays to limit the federal govt as much as possible.

And because of the frequent references to "liberty" being of fundamental importance. In the preamble, one of the goals is to secure the blessings of Liberty. And liberty cannot be taken without due process. Plus the whole 9th Amendment. Liberty and freedom are such prevalent concepts, that when in doubt, err in that direction.

{EDIT to destiny} No interpretation at all. So, no freedom of speech for electronic communications, or websites, because the 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about the internet. And no protections for vehicle searches or electronic wiretaps, because neither cars nor phones are listed in the 4th Amendment. Seriously, you want no interpretation at all?

Answer 4

Reasonably. How do you know what is reasonable? You have elections to put people in office who you believe see things reasonably. For me, it would be a moderate-conservative interpretation. We shouldn't read things into the constitution that clearly aren't there, but we shouldn't be so strict that we cannot apply original intent to new circumstances.

Answer 5

read it as it was written back then and not between the lines
why do some people feel we must always interpret something? Guess to make it fit their standard instead of fitting their standard to it

Answer 6

In light of original intent.

Of course the chances are good your teacher is liberal or communist so (s)he will want to hear:

Whatever way the ACLU decided to interpret it.

Answer 7

It should be read just as it is...thats all there is to it..Not interpreted..just read as is...