![]() ![]() If you disagree with your state’s laws, you have two remedies at your disposal: you can either move to another state or you can organize with other people who share your views to try to change your state’s law. For example, some states allow for capital punishment, other states don’t. Wade was a serious violation of this concept.ĪF/RF: Given the either-or nature of the abortion debate, should there be a general national consensus or moral agreement on the issue before deciding the legality of abortion?ĮM: There are a lot of moral issues that do not have national consensus. Opinions on local matters, such as family life and reproductive rights, were never meant to be handled by the federal government. The issue was already being solved by the different states in their different ways, but the Court gave the federal government this power instead. On one hand, the majority fabricated things that were not in the Constitution on the other, the Court took a topic―namely matters pertaining to family and marriage―which had never before been within the province of federal law. Originalism, then, protects democracy by ensuring that the government is held accountable by the public.ĪF/RF: In your mind, what is a prominent Supreme Court case that was decided wrongly?ĮM: Roe v. Think of the alternative: if judges could go beyond what the text permits, then the third branch, which is not directly responsible to the people, would make new laws that were not approved by the people. Thus, the resulting laws―as they are written―are the outcome of the democratic will. Under our democratic system, the laws have the democratic consent of the people through the legislative process. By sticking to the Constitution, the theory prevents judges from having their own personal biases or policy preferences.ĪF/RF: Does democracy require an originalist understanding of the Constitution?ĮM: Yes it does. Therefore, I encourage judges to interpret the Constitution as they would interpret any other legal document like a will or a contract. Critics have misinterpreted my theory by claiming that it requires knowledge of the writers’ intentions, but when I use the phrase original intent, I am looking at the actual words in the Constitution―not whatever the Founders had in their minds. ![]() In other words, the theory interprets the Constitution by asking how the society at the time of ratification reasonably understood what the provision meant. They expected that the language of the Constitution would be interpreted as written and that judges would remain within the Constitution in the decision of cases.ĪF/RF: Could you briefly explain your philosophy of “original intent?”ĮM: Yes, although it is probably better expressed as original understanding. He is a leader in conservative thought and has advocated for Constitutional principles throughout his years of public service.Īlex Fasseas & Ryan Frant: Is originalism a relatively new theory in constitutional interpretation?Įdwin Meese III: Originalism actually goes all the way back to the time of the Founders. In 2019, President Trump awarded Meese the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Edwin Meese III was the US Attorney General under Ronald Reagan (1985-1988) and one of the contemporary founders of originalism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |