The constitution of America has received a lot of ideas from analysts on how it should be treated and used by the people. The constitution was written many years ago yet it is always going through various amendments to ensure that it satisfies the current needs of the citizens. Despite some of the rigid laws that are presented in the document, they are usually subject to different interpretations depending on the lawyer or judge that is dealing with a certain case. This has been the main point of argument between two analysts, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on whether the original meaning and interpretation should be adopted or not. Scalia has presented valid arguments that support the fact that the original meaning should be used in interpretation while Stephen has presented arguments in disapproval of the same. In this paper, we focus on their arguments and a general opinion on the same.
According to Antonin Scalia, the judges must find out what the people that originally wrote the constitution meant before making any further interpretations. This is basically because what many be used to define some of the sections may not necessarily be what the current society feels is right. As a solution to any misinterpretation of the law, basically because of the probable fact that times have changed and that the original meaning may not make sense, there is usually room for amendments that can be utilized. He considers the instances where almost every lawyer and judge has their interpretation of the document as an abuse of it. It is the original meaning that will enhance its proper use and ensure that the citizens that are relying on it for justice get the same on its original form.
On the other hand, Stephen Breyer feels that the constitution should be interpreted following the changes taking place. In support of his arguments, he says that what was originally placed on the papers was to favor the kind of life that the people of that time lived which can not apply to the current society. About amendments, he observes that a case may not be left pending in court simply because the parties are waiting for a certain section that affects them to be amended. In such situations, the judges have to take urgent action and pass the necessary judgment after critically looking at the situations that surround the case. This does not however give a loophole to any individual that is in the wrong to simply interpret the law in their favor. There is usually the judicial system which is the sole determinant of the direction that a certain case will take.
In my opinion, I tend to agree and at the same time disagree with the points that have been raised above. As much as it is necessary to consider the original meaning of the sections in the constitution before using them, they may completely be meaningless in the current society. A lot has changed and is still changing and no matter how many times the constitution may be amended, it will never completely satisfy the needs of the changing society. However, it provides a platform through which both lawyers and judges can place their arguments and reach a decision towards a certain case. On the other hand, finding the original meaning of the constitution will help the judiciary to relate to the scenarios happening around and hence make the correct judgment.