Essay On Living Constitutionalism

There are two main types of judicial interpretation used by judges: originalist and evolutionist (also known as living Constitutionalists. The interpretation method used by each judge is critical as it shapes his or her understanding and determination of law.
Judges that used originalist interpretation judge cases by what they think that the Founding Fathers intended at the time the Constitution was drafted. This means that not only do they look to the Constitution for answers, but also sources like the Federalist papers, letters written by the Founding Fathers, and even Senate history notes when it comes to cases dealing with the Amendments. This form allows an interpretation to be as true to the Constitution as possible. Justice Scalia is an example of an originalist. There are some dangers to originalism. One being that the Founding Fathers were unable to forsee the advancements of modern technology. If one examines the second amendment, Madison expected it to protect the citizenry from an overbearing government. But does that mean that individual citizens should be able to own and maintain nuclear weapons? Most people would argue no, however an originalist could easily argue yes. Secondly, it is difficult to be an orignialist because it
Justice Brennan and Stevens are examples of Living Constitutionalists. Living Constitutionalists are responsible for the evolution of rights. For example, this mentality can be seen in the matter of right to privacy regarding sex and abortion. Throughout the course of several cases (such as Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade), those using the evolutionist philosophy expanding the meaning of the 9th Amendment to cover the privacy of those who wish to use birth control or abortion by severely limiting states’ ability to regulate these two