Why the Constitution Doesn't Always Mean What It Meant in 1787

Introduction

The United States Constitution has been around for over 230 years. It was drafted in an era before electricity, cars, planes, telephones, the internet, or even modern computers. Surprisingly, this document serves as a basis for making decisions about topics that didn’t even exist when it was written.

How is such a thing possible? The answer to this question will not be found in the Constitution itself, but rather in the minds of those who interpret it. Even though all of the Supreme Court Justices take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, they do not always interpret it in the same way. Two of the most prominent schools of thought are called originalism and the living constitution.

The basic premises of these two views will be discussed, as well as their importance and effect on society.

Constitution Interpretation and the Originalist Approach

Originalism is a school of thought that favors interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning. The supporters of this approach emphasize that judges should interpret the documents based on what it said when it was ratified. To put it another way, originalists believe that the constitution should be interpreted based on the understanding of the people who drafted and ratified it.

The supporters of this approach argue that it promotes stability and limits the potential for judges to act as legislators. The argument is that if judges were able to interpret the constitution in whatever way they saw fit depending on the times, then it would be too easy for them to impose their will on the citizens.

According to the originalist approach, if people want changes to the constitution, it should be done through the amendment process as described in Article V. Originalists believe that at the time of ratification, the constitution was the perfect document. They also believe that if it needs to be changed, it should be amended formally and not interpreted beyond what it already says.

The Living Constitution

The supporters of the original constitution disagree with originalism on several levels. They argue that the framers intended for the constitution to last long after its ratification. In fact, most of the more important amendments have been added long after the constitution was drafted. This school of thought is sometimes called the living constitution.

It rests on the assumption that the constitution provided general principles that should be applied to current issues. The supporters argue that the flexibility of the constitution is one of the reasons why it lasted for as long as it did. They further argue that many of the amendments had to be added later because the issues they addressed didn’t exist when the constitution was drafted.

They point to problems such as slavery, the right to education, and freedom of speech as things that were either not acknowledged or were considered unimportant during the drafting of the constitution. The opponents of the originalist approach further argue that modern problems such as those relating to technology cannot be solved if they are only addressed from the point of view of the 18th century.

The opponents of the originalist approach to interpreting the constitution believe that it favors judicial override of clear legislative will by the legislature. Many of them argue that originalism is an anti-majoritarian bias that undermines the very foundations of democracy.

Why the Debate Matters The disagreement between the supporters of the original meaning of the constitution and those who favor a living constitution approach has enormous implications for many of the controversial issues that the supreme court has to deal with.

Both sides rely heavily on different interpretations when it comes to interpreting the constitution. When it comes to issues such as the rights of women, the rights of the accused, or even the interpretation of the first amendment when it comes to new technologies, the two sides rely on completely different arguments. The proponents of the original meaning of the constitution argue that whatever did or did not happen before the constitution was ratified is the only way to interpret it. The supporters of the living constitution argue that the framers intended for the constitution to be flexible enough to address new issues as they arise.

It is interesting to note that in many of the debates, the arguments from both sides are used by justices from either side of the ideological divide. It is also important to note that the issues the constitution has to address are becoming more and more complicated with each passing day.

Competing Perspectives

The originalist perspective rests on the idea that constitutional interpretation should be based on what the constitution said when it was ratified. The proponents argue that this is the only fair way to interpret the constitution.

They further argue that if each new generation gets to interpret the constitution according to its own liking, then the very idea of a written constitution is entirely defeated. As mentioned above, the biggest problem with originalism is the fact that many of the issues addressed by the constitution or the amendments simply did not exist at the time the constitution was drafted. Originalism proponents argue that any changes should be made through the amendment process as specified in Article V.

The supporters of the living constitution take issue with this because they believe that many of the problems the framers had to address were unique to their time and that the constitution was only meant to serve as a guideline for future generations to interpret according to their own needs. This view has its problems as well, as it could give the judicial branch too much power over issues that should be addressed by the legislature.

Conclusion

The issue of constitutional interpretation is of major importance to many of the issues the supreme court has to address. It is also of interest to citizens who want to understand why so many controversial issues are so contentious. The disagreement between originalism and the living constitution provides insight into some of these conflicts. For the students of history, the disagreement is important because it serves as a reminder that even though the past is in many ways frozen in time, it is the responsibility of each new generation to interpret it based on the circumstances they live in now.