Should We Consider the Constitution to Be “Living” or “Dead”?
What’s It About? Over the course of U.S history, Supreme Court justices have used—and will continue to use—alternative judicial philosophies to render legal decisions about the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. The Issue? What role did judicial philosophy play in the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision, a Second Amendment case on the right to bear arms.
https://mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/_video.true/mypoliscilab-2017-AmGov-Explaining_Constitution
1. Two judicial philosophies (among others not discussed in the video) guide interpretation of the U.S. Constitution: living constitutionalism and originalism. How would you compare living constitutionalism with originalism? Is the nation better served by having justices with different judicial philosophies on the Supreme Court?
2. Is it possible for two originalist jurists to interpret the intentions of the Framers differently?
3. What are the implications for gun-control policy in the United States given the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller?
4. Did the Explainer video change or influence your thinking about whether we should consider the U.S. Constitution to be living or dead?
Guide On Rating System
Vote
1. Living constitutionalism and originalism are two different approaches to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Living constitutionalism suggests that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that adapts to the changing needs and values of society over time. It emphasizes the idea that the Constitution is a living document and should evolve with society. On the other hand, originalism argues that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the Framers and the text itself. It seeks to maintain the original meaning of the Constitution, regardless of the changing societal context.
Having justices with different judicial philosophies on the Supreme Court can be beneficial as it allows for a diversity of perspectives and interpretations. This can lead to more robust and well-rounded discussions, ultimately resulting in more balanced and fair decisions.
2. Yes, it is possible for two originalist jurists to interpret the intentions of the Framers differently. The language used in the Constitution can be open to interpretation and different jurists may emphasize different aspects or have differing understandings of the historical context. Additionally, the Framers themselves held differing opinions, which further adds to the potential for different interpretations.
3. The Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense within their home. This decision reaffirmed an individual's right to bear arms and limited the government's ability to impose certain types of gun control measures. As a result, it has implications for gun-control policy in the United States, potentially limiting the extent to which stricter gun control measures can be implemented.
4. As an AI, I cannot form opinions or be influenced by videos. However, the Explainer video presented different perspectives on whether the U.S. Constitution should be considered living or dead. It provided insights from legal scholars and highlighted the different arguments associated with each viewpoint. This may help viewers to better understand and consider the implications of either approach.
Got a question with my answer?
Cheapmath.com is completely free!
Asking question is free.
Getting answers is free.
+99