Why does constitutional interpretation change from court to court?

Answer 1

Interpretation changes because the wording of the Constitution is very vague. For example, what does "Cruel and Unusual punishment" mean? One generation will say that flogging is not cruel and unusual. But over time, standards of right and wrong change; and as they change, so will the interpretation of the document.

To give you a more recent example. In the 1980s the Supreme Court was asked if executing juveniles was "Cruel and Unusual." The court found statistics which indicate that the vast majority of states had laws allowing for juvenile execultion; and so they ruled that it wasn't cruel and unusual.

But just last year, another such case came before the court. When the court looked at "prevailing community standards" they found that almost every state now outlawed juvenile executions, and so the court ruled that as a society, the nation had rejected juvenile executions, and therefore, it WAS now cruel and unusual.

With the wording being so vague, it's impossible for absolute meanings to be established. Thus, every generation interprets the document to fit its needs.

Hope this answer helps.

Answer 2

Where this occurs it is generally a rule of law that has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Different lower court levels will sometimes have differing perspectives on a specific rule of law. However, if the Supreme Court of the United States has made such a ruling then “stare decisis” applies. Any lower court which does not follow that decision will be subject to reversal on appeal.

From time to time a rule of law previously decided by the Supreme Court of the United States will be readdressed and result in a different decision. This generally occurs over long periods of time and fits within the Common Law evolution. The case of Dred Scott comes to mind.

The difference of judges' perspective is part of the process, but if you read the decisions of the court you will find that these decisions are fully detailed and that those differences are based on their view of the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a living document that changes with the times. Rather, it is a document that is the solid rock on which various challenges are addressed keeping the country on a narrow track. The only changes that can occur with the Constitution are through the Amendment process and these (as with common law) these take years to come to pass.

Jack's example is a good one (concerning children), although I don't consider the wording of the constitution vague, rather, the Constitution was addressing a power of the States and during the interveening years the States altered in their perspective (as Common Law evolves) and the court recoginized that change. The Constitution in its wording and allowed for this change.

Answer 3

It's not only interpreted by the wording, but also as the judges of the court perceive the writers' thoughts when they wrote the
constitution.
Sandra Day O'Connor yesterday stated that with each new judge to the Supreme Court, in actuality a whole new court is formed.

Answer 4

People interpret the Constitution differently. It varies not only court by court but also judge by judge.

Answer 5

Because no two cases are exactly the same and because of the variations in the situations, the opinions of the presiding judges, and the skill and presentation of the lawyers involved the verdicts of interpretations of constitutional law evolve as does all law and knowledge.

Answer 6

Perhaps because it's a living document that has the flexibility to change according to the needs of the times?

Answer 7

just so they can cluck us around ! thats what they do