0
Which method of interpreting the Constitution original intent or living document do you think is more valid?
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Since you are asking an opinion I will give you mine. I believe that looking at the constitution as a living document is more valid. When the constitution was written 200 years ago many things we have today didn't exist, so there is a need to be able to address the world as it is not as it was. The one thing that hasn't changed is the question about what makes good government. If we can answer this question we maybe able to create a better government for the common good.
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do you need the preamble?
In the preamble, one typically states the goals and purpose of the document. While not a summary, it should generally provide a preview of what is to be covered in the document, and the reason for the document.
What is original intent?
Original Intent in scientific terms is reading a researchers paper and trying to understand what their original intent with the paper was. You then start to highlight the parts of the paper where the results start to differ from what the writer intended the results to be.
Is the Declaration of Independence a legal document to govern the US?
Absolutely. It was ratified by the states, exactly as the Constitution was, and is the defining point of beginning for a new nation. A founding document is a statement of intent, for a new nation.
Supreme Court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the answer to which question?
How important is the original intent of the Constitution when deciding cases? -Apex
Did the Warren Court support an activist government?
I think you mean, did the Warren Court make activist interpretations of the Constitution. This is a highly politicized issue. I'm not even sure one can get the opposing parties in this discussion to agree on the meaning of the terms, but . . . I would say those who support activist interpretation would tell you they are interpreting the intent of the words in the Constitution in the context of today's world rather than the world as it was over 200 years ago. I'll call the other side originalists. I think the originalists would say they are interpreting the Constitution as it was written originally and in the context of the time it was written. Given these meanings both sides might agree the Warren Court made activitist interpretations. But, the two sides would disagree on whether the originalists were really following the original intent. I would say the neither side is doing what they claim -- and that both are interpreting the Constitution to suit their political biases with no consistent philosophy.
Why are the Federalist Papers vital to our government?
The Federalist Papers are often used as a guide to help understand the Framers' original intent when interpreting the Constitution.
The Federalist Papers are most important because they?
They are especially influential because they explain what the Founding Fathers really meant when they wrote the Constitution. Knowing the original intent of the Framers is very important for interpreting the Constitution over two hundred years after it was written.so in novelstars terms ...reveal the intent of the Framers of the Constitution
What was the original intent of the constitution?
The original intent of the Constitution was to establish a framework for a new form of government that would balance power between the federal government and the states. It aimed to create a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power, protect individual rights, and provide a structure for governance that would endure over time.
What was a strict constuctionists?
It was a person who believed in the original intent of the founders and the Constitution. Instead of interpreting it in new ways, as a loose constructionalist does, a strict constructionalist usually reads in word and words and interprets it as it clearly states.
What is it when the supreme court tried to imagine what the framers meant when they wrote the constitution?
Original intent
What is it when the Supreme Court tries to imagine what the framers meant when they wrote the Constitution?
Original intent
Contrast original intent with judicial activism?
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
Should the supreme court be guided by the original meaning?
The question of whether the Supreme Court should be guided by the original meaning of the Constitution is a matter of interpretation. Some argue that interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning ensures fidelity to the intentions of the framers. Others argue that the Constitution must be adapted to address modern realities and should be interpreted flexibly. Ultimately, the approach to constitutional interpretation should strike a balance between respecting the original intent and allowing for societal evolution.
Why do you need the preamble?
In the preamble, one typically states the goals and purpose of the document. While not a summary, it should generally provide a preview of what is to be covered in the document, and the reason for the document.
What is original intent?
Original Intent in scientific terms is reading a researchers paper and trying to understand what their original intent with the paper was. You then start to highlight the parts of the paper where the results start to differ from what the writer intended the results to be.
Is the Declaration of Independence a legal document to govern the US?
Absolutely. It was ratified by the states, exactly as the Constitution was, and is the defining point of beginning for a new nation. A founding document is a statement of intent, for a new nation.
Does the Declaration of Independence contain laws that govern the United States?
No, the Declaration of Independence is not a law making document. The US Constitution is the document that creates the laws that govern the US. The Declaration can only be used to help indicate the intent of the Constitution's framers, but does not create law.
