The Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the country was designed to determine the univocal point of view about all the basic realities and cases. However, it is not always easy to figure out what is prescribed by the Constitution and how to read it. The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the document should be interpreted literally or the changes that have occurred over time shall be taken into consideration while interpreting.
The Constitution was drafted, debated, and adopted more than two centuries ago. Strict constructionists, or originalists, believe that the people who stood at the origins of the USA and the Constitution all had the same philosophy and might be collectively called framers. Moreover, in the originalists’ opinion, in the Constitution, they explicitly expressed the original intent which must not be betrayed. Therefore, the Supreme Law should be read literally and interpreted narrowly.
However, judicial interpretivism, or non-originalists, have some objections to strict constructionists’ positions. The drafters of the provisions, the delegates, and the ratifying legislature’s members all could have had different views and ideas; hence, a question arises whose opinion is to be relied on. Besides, it might be difficult for modern people to comprehend the historical intention because the framers lived in a different world and could not predict in what ways society would change.
Indeed, since the time of the Constitution’s ratification, the media, for example, have developed in a substantial way bringing new ways of influencing the society that the people who participated in the creation and adoption of the Constitution could not anticipate. That is why non-originalists claim that one should understand the provisions of the Constitution generally, not narrowly, and consider great historical changes the world has seen since the time the Constitution was ratified.
Speaking about my perception of the issue, I share the views and ideas of non-originalists. In spite of the fact that the written law plays a key role in decision-making and personal judgments of the authorities should not substitute it, one should not ignore the world alternations. Certainly, strict constructionists think that this approach would give judges the right to interpret the Constitution according to their personal beliefs and preferences. However, judges do not have a complete freedom and are restrained by their powers.
As for the examples of contradictory issues, Trump’s 2017 decision to ban immigration from 7 countries belongs to one of them. Supporters of strict constructionism regarded this action as a right step which corresponds with the law giving President the complete power to make decisions on who can enter the US. However, non-originalists and college leaders spoke against the order because they were worried that it would damage the US higher education as a large number of US students came from the 7 countries.
The issues of pornography and commercial advertisements can also be considered in this respect. On the one hand, pornography being easily accessible on the Internet and obtrusive commercials on TV can affect people, especially children, and adolescents, negatively and should be regulated. On the other hand, the Constitution grants the press freedom of speech and expression. The problem is that the framers could not envisage such situations in the late 18th century. Non-originalists understand that and vote for taking regulatory measures in the abovementioned cases. Nevertheless, there might be some originalists who believe that even the needs of the time and changing circumstances can’t justify a slightly different interpretation of the Constitution.
To sum up, it is important to press the point that choosing the right approach to understanding the Constitution of the United States is a difficult matter. Basically, there are two groups of people having opposite views: strict constructionists who claim that the Constitution shall be read literally and judicial interpretivists who are for the general understanding of the Supreme Law. As for me, I share the second point of view because the changing conditions and needs of the time are to be addressed.