Original Intent Argument Analysis
The Constitution of the United States is a document representing the supreme law do the land. Supreme Court Justices are vested with the power of evaluating this document with corresponding laws and coming up with judgment on their relevancy and constitutionality. However, justices often find themselves at odds on how to decipher the documents original meaning; much like in Obergefell vs Hodges, where Justices Kennedy and Roberts disagree on how the Constitution should be interpreted. In a "Concise Guide to the Federalist Papers," written by Gregory Maggs, the “original meaning” of the constitution is broken down into three different definitions that can be used as foundations for assessing the logic that stems from court opinions. Based off
…show more content…
Defined by Maggs original intent can be seen as “the meaning that the Framers of the Constitution—the delegates who drafted the document in 1787—intended the Constitution to have”. For this perspective simply saying the words “right to bear arms” does not mean what it literally says; instead, they see the second amendment as the framers acknowledgment for the necessity of an armed populous. Leaving breathing room for legislation such as gun registration and background checks, in other words allowing the Constitution to “live” through the legislation of the generation that it is presiding over. Evidence of the majority holding this perspective is clear through statements such as …show more content…
That position is one that “looks at a variety of writings from the founding period to discerns the customary meaning of words and phrases in the Constitution”. Roberts’ statements such as, “It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property”. Here Roberts clearly draws a distinction between what the text says and how the majority has expanded the definition. Maggs would say that this point of view is mostly solid in foundation, being purely text based, however he would make the point to say that the founder’s words may not be unpolluted in nature “because partisan bias may have influenced the authors’ choice of words and
Defined by Maggs original intent can be seen as “the meaning that the Framers of the Constitution—the delegates who drafted the document in 1787—intended the Constitution to have”. For this perspective simply saying the words “right to bear arms” does not mean what it literally says; instead, they see the second amendment as the framers acknowledgment for the necessity of an armed populous. Leaving breathing room for legislation such as gun registration and background checks, in other words allowing the Constitution to “live” through the legislation of the generation that it is presiding over. Evidence of the majority holding this perspective is clear through statements such as …show more content…
That position is one that “looks at a variety of writings from the founding period to discerns the customary meaning of words and phrases in the Constitution”. Roberts’ statements such as, “It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property”. Here Roberts clearly draws a distinction between what the text says and how the majority has expanded the definition. Maggs would say that this point of view is mostly solid in foundation, being purely text based, however he would make the point to say that the founder’s words may not be unpolluted in nature “because partisan bias may have influenced the authors’ choice of words and