According to page 531 of the Edwards book, original intent is a view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Framers. Should judges base their ruling on original intent? I think it depends. The Constitution has been a lasting document, so the Framers must have done something right. One side of the argument is that any deviation from following the original intentions of the Constitution's Framers is a deviation from principle, leaving unelected judges to impose their views on the American people. On the other side are those who believe that it is often impossible to discern the views of the Framers and that there is no good reason to be constrained by eighteenth century views.
I agree with Mallory's statement that the it depends if judges should base their ruling on "original intent". If judges always followed the original intent then America would be stuck in the eighteenth century and not be able to become modernized like other countries, making America fall behind in the world. On the other hand, if the judges did not rule based on "original intent" then America could lose some of the principles that made it so great and made people able to have the "American Dream".
Although Eli and Mallory brought up good points as to why judges should base their rulings on ‘original intent’ I believe the opposite. I think the judges should consider the intent of the framers of the constitution but they shouldn’t try and determine the intent of them. As mentioned on page 531 of the Edwards book, the Constitution holds multiple meanings from people of a different age. The ideas of the judges and the framers of the Constitution have changed over the years and therefore; original intent would not likely have an effect on judicial discretion. That is why the judges should not try and determine the intent of the Constitution and what they think it is saying but by what it is actually saying.
According to page 531 of the Edwards book, original intent is a view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Framers. Should judges base their ruling on original intent? I think it depends. The Constitution has been a lasting document, so the Framers must have done something right. One side of the argument is that any deviation from following the original intentions of the Constitution's Framers is a deviation from principle, leaving unelected judges to impose their views on the American people. On the other side are those who believe that it is often impossible to discern the views of the Framers and that there is no good reason to be constrained by eighteenth century views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mallory's statement that the it depends if judges should base their ruling on "original intent". If judges always followed the original intent then America would be stuck in the eighteenth century and not be able to become modernized like other countries, making America fall behind in the world. On the other hand, if the judges did not rule based on "original intent" then America could lose some of the principles that made it so great and made people able to have the "American Dream".
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlthough Eli and Mallory brought up good points as to why judges should base their rulings on ‘original intent’ I believe the opposite. I think the judges should consider the intent of the framers of the constitution but they shouldn’t try and determine the intent of them. As mentioned on page 531 of the Edwards book, the Constitution holds multiple meanings from people of a different age. The ideas of the judges and the framers of the Constitution have changed over the years and therefore; original intent would not likely have an effect on judicial discretion. That is why the judges should not try and determine the intent of the Constitution and what they think it is saying but by what it is actually saying.
ReplyDelete