Originalism vs Evolving Constitutionalism: Constitution

[La Xinga]

How to interpret the constitution?

There are two primary ways to do it.

1. ORIGINALISM. Originalism is the belief that the constitution's meaning remains the same as the states ratified it when the constitution or the specific amendment was ratified. Antonin Scalia is an example of an Originalist.

2. EVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALISM. Also known as Living Constitutionalism, it is the belief that the Constitution should adapt to people at the time. An example of an Evolving Constitutionalist would be Stephen Breyer.

An example of a difference between the 2 would be Capital Punishment. Evolving Constitutionalists (most) say that it should be abolished since the majority of Americans disapprove of it, under "Cruel and Unusual Punishment," but Originalists say that at the time when the Bill of Rights were ratified the Vast Majority of Americans AND the authors/framers AND the State Governments did not believe it was.\

So what are you? An Originalist? And Evolving Constitutionalist?

(We mean the US)

[Nilokeras]

In the Canadian legal tradition the constitution has been interpreted universally as a 'living tree' for almost a century now. This isn't even a debate.

[La Xinga]

In the Canadian legal tradition the constitution has been interpreted universally as a 'living tree' for almost a century now. This isn't even a debate.

US.

[Necroghastia]

Why would you even provide for amendments if you intended the "original meaning" to be the end-all be-all?

[Nilokeras]

In the Canadian legal tradition the constitution has been interpreted universally as a 'living tree' for almost a century now. This isn't even a debate.

US.

Oh well that's boring. Never mind then.

[Deacarsia]

I am an originalist.

Evolving constitutionalism is silly, as it just means that the judge gets to do whatever he feels like. There is a process for altering the United States constitution if neccessary, as outline in Article V. If this process is too hard, then the change probably does not need made.

[Margire]

How to interpret the constitution?

There are two primary ways to do it.

1. ORIGINALISM. Originalism is the belief that the constitution's meaning remains the same as the states ratified it when the constitution or the specific amendment was ratified. Antonin Scalia is an example of an Originalist.

2. EVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALISM. Also known as Living Constitutionalism, it is the belief that the Constitution should adapt to people at the time. An example of an Evolving Constitutionalist would be Stephen Breyer.

An example of a difference between the 2 would be Capital Punishment. Evolving Constitutionalists (most) say that it should be abolished since the majority of Americans disapprove of it, under "Cruel and Unusual Punishment," but Originalists say that at the time when the Bill of Rights were ratified the Vast Majority of Americans AND the authors/framers AND the State Governments did not believe it was.\

So what are you? An Originalist? And Evolving Constitutionalist?

(We mean the US)

Evolving. I mean unless the founding fathers were magical prophets that could see into the future. Which they were not so, the constitution needs to change accordingly based on the current times

[New haven america]

Make a new one like Thomas wanted to happen.

[Adamede]

I tend to support originalism but every needs some flexibility so I’m not opposed to looking at the construction as an evil bing document either.

[Nakena]

Esoteric Hasselhoffist Interpretation.

It will always interpreted in the way that leads to the maximum amount of awesomeness.

[Adamede]

Make a new one like Thomas wanted to happen.

I don’t expect anything better to come out of America today.

[Ethel mermania]

Esoteric Hasselhoffist Interpretation.

It will always interpreted in the way that leads to the maximum amount of awesomeness.

Seconded

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm a bit of both.

[Kowani]

both of them are almost always used as justification and a rhetorical shield for one's desired outcome
not to say that judges can't make decisions that they dislike based on those principles
but they tend to not do so

[La Xinga]

Make a new one like Thomas wanted to happen.

Thomas?

Clarence Thomas?

[Punished UMN]

How to interpret the constitution?

There are two primary ways to do it.

1. ORIGINALISM. Originalism is the belief that the constitution's meaning remains the same as the states ratified it when the constitution or the specific amendment was ratified. Antonin Scalia is an example of an Originalist.

2. EVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALISM. Also known as Living Constitutionalism, it is the belief that the Constitution should adapt to people at the time. An example of an Evolving Constitutionalist would be Stephen Breyer.

An example of a difference between the 2 would be Capital Punishment. Evolving Constitutionalists (most) say that it should be abolished since the majority of Americans disapprove of it, under "Cruel and Unusual Punishment," but Originalists say that at the time when the Bill of Rights were ratified the Vast Majority of Americans AND the authors/framers AND the State Governments did not believe it was.\

So what are you? An Originalist? And Evolving Constitutionalist?

(We mean the US)

This is specifically the opposite of what originalists believe or what they believe is important. Originalists (at least the vast majority in the United States, including Antonin Scalia) believe in death of the author and say that the beliefs or intentions of those who wrote the law are irrelevant to what the law says.

[Greed and Death]

How to interpret the constitution?

There are two primary ways to do it.

1. ORIGINALISM. Originalism is the belief that the constitution's meaning remains the same as the states ratified it when the constitution or the specific amendment was ratified. Antonin Scalia is an example of an Originalist.

2. EVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALISM. Also known as Living Constitutionalism, it is the belief that the Constitution should adapt to people at the time. An example of an Evolving Constitutionalist would be Stephen Breyer.

An example of a difference between the 2 would be Capital Punishment. Evolving Constitutionalists (most) say that it should be abolished since the majority of Americans disapprove of it, under "Cruel and Unusual Punishment," but Originalists say that at the time when the Bill of Rights were ratified the Vast Majority of Americans AND the authors/framers AND the State Governments did not believe it was.\

So what are you? An Originalist? And Evolving Constitutionalist?

(We mean the US)

This is specifically the opposite of what originalists believe or what they believe is important. Originalists (at least the vast majority in the United States, including Antonin Scalia) believe in death of the author and say that the beliefs or intentions of those who wrote the law are irrelevant to what the law says.

Not exactly there are several strains of originalism of which original intent and original meaning are two. Prior to the 1970's Original intent was the predominate form of originalism. Judge Bork was the main force shifting Originalism from intent to meaning.

[Greed and Death]

both of them are almost always used as justification and a rhetorical shield for one's desired outcome
not to say that judges can't make decisions that they dislike based on those principles
but they tend to not do so

Judicial realism has arrived. How are you sir doing well ?

[Greed and Death]

I find my position interesting. Policy wise I tend to lean toward many liberal paths. For instance I believe abortion should be legal. However I tend to favor an original meaning in my interpretation of the constitution so for instance I do not think abortion is a constitutional right despite thinking it should be legal.

The main reason for this is that the Law is a public act including super law ie Constitutional Law. I find that both original intent and living constitutionalism detracts from the law being a public act. Original intent by basically making the law mean what the secret inner thoughts of the founding fathers were and living constitutionalism by the secret inner thoughts of nine law wizards in the supreme court.

[Sundiata]

I am an originalist.

Evolving constitutionalism is silly, as it just means that the judge gets to do whatever he feels like.

No it does not, it means that the judge still has to interpret the law based upon precedent and reasonable interpretation of said law.

[Sundiata]

Make a new one like Thomas wanted to happen.

Quite opinionated for a tank engine.

[Cordel One]

Yeeeah, so what about those indivisuals who really don't like the Constitution and think it should be replaced?

[Sundiata]

Yeeeah, so what about those indivisuals who really don't like the Constitution and think it should be replaced?

Evolving.

[Nakena]

Yeeeah, so what about those indivisuals who really don't like the Constitution and think it should be replaced?

Not going to happen as, other reasons aside, americans couldn agree nowadays on a new one.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why would you even provide for amendments if you intended the "original meaning" to be the end-all be-all?

This question doesn't even make sense lol. Amendments make the most sense in an originalist context.